The EAT Forum is undoubtedly an event with a difference. I certainly came away inspired, armed with a big pile of business cards from great side discussions that generated a feast of ideas for follow up.

The diversity of 1000 delegates who descended on Stockholm was fabulous, chefs, community activists, philanthropists, numerous businesses from large to small, start-up entrepreneurs, scientists, policy makers, NGO leaders, and staff from international agencies representing 80 different countries. Just the sort of mix you need to think more systemically about food – from farm to fork.

So where did it all land and what are the key takeaways? For me what came through was a powerful combination of crisis and hope. Presenter after presenter put the facts on the table about the dire state of our food systems in terms of poor nutrition, climate impacts, biodiversity loss, soil degradation and collapsing ocean ecosystems. At the same time everybody in the room had an inspiring story to tell of how they were working to make a difference.

This year the scene setting for the Forum was the launch earlier in the year of the EAT-Lancet Commission Report. This was a first attempt to put an integrated scientific analysis behind what the world, overall, should be eating for health and to stay with a safe operating space of planetary boundaries – “the healthy eating plate”. It has created huge media attention and really got people thinking – and talking!  Of course such a bold initiative has also generated a deal of criticism and misunderstanding (see here for an example of reporting on WHO links and here the Commission’s response). Clarity in underlying assumptions is critical, see here for example, a discussion about livestock sector impacts on climate and environment. At the Forum the authors were at pains to make clear the health eating plate this is not prescription for everyone and adaption to local circumstances and individual needs is essential. Certainly, the report has laid out a critical scientific benchmark against which ongoing discussions about what we should be eating can be had.

And yes, we were served meals that followed the EAT-Lancet principles – the food was great!

How do you get people to change what they eat? One takeaway from the forum was that pounding people with messages about what they should be eating – for the health and to care for the planet – is probably the wrong route. Instead, we need to focus on making sure healthy and sustainable food is really tasty, affordable and convenient – this is what needs to be marketed. It was great to hear how many chefs are now creating a whole new world of recipes that illustrate just how good “healthy eating plate” inspired food can taste.

I had a great a discussion in the Food Systems Dialogue session. We got stuck into the question of incentives for change and how to get a better regime of tax and subsidies that can internalise the massive environmental and health cost externalities of current food systems. An idea – for some pilot countries develop an example of what an economic transition to sustainable food systems might look like by redesigning taxes and subsidies and tackling trade-offs.

The theme of the true cost of food was picked up by Jeremy Oppenheim in presenting work of the Food and Land Use Coalition. Bottom line, based on preliminary assessments, from an estimated USD 8-10 billion food sector, taking account of the true costs of food related to disease, poor nutrition, climate, environment and poverty, we end up being out of pocket by USD 2.5 billion. Any business would be quickly broke!

Foresight4Food hosted two side events. One on futures thinking for food systems transformation (Click here for a background document, click here for a presentation on foresight and food systems change, and here for a presentation on food systems terminology) and the other on starting an initiative on the possible impacts of large-scale adoption of novel food sources – seaweed, algae, insects, cultured meat etc. (click here for an introduction to food systems thinking, and here for a presentation on the disruptive implications of technology). Much interest from both sessions so a good deal of follow-up now on the agenda for Foresight4Food.

There was great representation from around the world, however, it was also acknowledged that the EAT Forum can do more to connect with the realities of food issues in the developing South.

The importance of a food systems approach for tackling many of the Sustainable Development Goals has gained huge traction. A next step needs to be getting stuck into developing national level food system transition strategies that can break down the traditional silo-ed sectoral approach to policy formulation. This will require the sort of in-depth foresight and scenario processes that Foresight4Food seeks to encourage and support.

Blog by Jim Woodhill – Foresight4Food Initiative Lead

I have just been at EAT Forum in Stockholm engaging in the debates about how to transform our food systems. It’s clear – the ways we are consuming and producing food is dramatically out of alignment with eating healthily, protecting the planet, and ensuring a fair livelihood for smaller-scale farmers and others working across the food system.

There is clearly no easy solution to the deep structural changes that will be needed. The discussions bounced around about who would drive change: consumer vs business vs government vs civil society. During a discussion I participated in during the Food Systems Dialogue side event the problem seemed very clear. Currently, the health and environmental costs of our food systems are largely market externalities. This creates very distorted incentives for both consumers and business. Internalising the true costs of food will require radical changes to the tax and subsidy regimes that have a big influence on how food is produced, marketed and consumed. But how to bring about such change?

This discussion brought be back to a framework for agri-food transformation I developed some years back (see here for a more detailed ideas paper). I refer to this three-dimensional model as the “Rubik’s cube” of agri-food transformation – reflecting the complexity of real-world change. Its purpose is to map out the different dimensions of innovation needed for food system change.

First, on the Y axis is the common-sense idea that we must take a complete value chain perspective from ‘farm to fork’, and understand the linkages between producing, processing, distributing, and consuming.

Second on the Z axis is the need for a combination of three types of innovation technological, institutional, and political. Changing incentives structures through tax or subsidies is an institutional innovation, but this will only be possible through political innovation in how decisions are made. Technological innovation, for example, can provide all sorts ways for smart monitoring that could enable effective implementation of such incentives.

The third dimension on the X axis is a “three P” process of innovation. The starting point needs to be people and their perspectives. Understanding why people see things the way they do and exploring their values, motivations, and interests is a foundation for then working towards shared visions and common commitments for action. Second, practical solutions to technical and social issues also need to be found – the prospects. These might be climate smart breeding so crops can grow better in times of drought, or apps that help people better manage their diet. Third, pathways are needed to put prospects into use at scale.

Too often our institutions work in isolated “stove pipe” ways, undermining the scope for more effective transformation. Science and policy don’t connect well enough, or we have wonderful technologies but not backed up by the institutional reform needed to deliver optimal social good. Agriculture and health get treated like isolated sectors with little connection between policy objectives. As an agricultural scientist, I reflect that historically a good deal of agriculture development focused largely on creating technical prospects for production – just one of the 27 domains in the ‘cube’ necessary for a more systemic approach to change.

As the EAT Forum highlighted, we now have a pretty good understanding of what the problems are with our current food systems. We know why this matters and have clear indications of the future risks we face. The challenge now is tackling the how of change. For this we are going to have to engage much more deeply in the questions of how change happens in complex systems and how to nudge toward more desirable rather than less desirable directions.

Foresight and scenario exercises, linked with the holistic approach outlined above, can engage stakeholders in asking “what would happen if”. This is potentially powerful way of contributing to the food system transformations that are so urgently needed. Foresight seeks to bring stakeholders into dialogue, supported by good visual information on trends, risks and emerging innovations to explore the future. This helps to create shared perspectives, pathways forward and the political will to act.

Blog by Jim Woodhill – Foresight4Food Initiative Lead

IFPRI-South Asia and ACIAR’s SDIP conducted a learning and professional development workshop for strengthening capacities on food systems foresight. The event brought together over 60 practitioners from Nepal, Bangladesh, and India in Kathmandu from the 11^th-14^th of February 2019. The workshop is part of a two-year foresight exercise focused on understanding the food system in the Eastern Gangetic Plain.

It also followed the launch of the Himalayan Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s (HIMAP) ‘The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment’. The Assessment addresses the key environmental and socio-economic pillars for sustainable development in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya regions. It is a comprehensive assessment of the current knowledge of the region and set the stage for the ‘Bracing for the Future’ event in Kathmandu with SDIP.

Some of the fastest growing economies in the region, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal offer new opportunities for transformative change in food systems. However, these are inter-linked with major challenges in the development of sustainable, equitable, and healthy food systems, and unpredictable drivers and uncertainties. Understanding these uncertainties and exploring the potential pathways for change need the collaborative involvement of all stakeholders, and a systems and foresight approach.

The four-day exercise had two primary goals: the first was to create and nurture greater collaboration between the regional partners, and the second was to start a collaborative process to identify the preferred and necessary transformative pathways needed to make the regional food system more sustainable, resilient, and better serving the needs of the population.

Organized around the food systems foresight framework of the Foresight4Food Initiative, the workshop was structured as follows:

1. Day 1: Introduction to foresight and food systems for the EGP
2. Day 2: Food systems and foresight methodology, modelling and data contributions
3. Day 3: Mapping food system dynamics, and identifying and prioritizing drivers, trends, and uncertainties
4. Day 4: Developing scenarios for food systems and identifying future collaborations and pathways of taking foresight forward in the region

The workshop objectives were achieved with a set of short informative presentations that synthesized the status of knowledge and participatory sessions on mapping food system dynamics and scenario-building exercises.  The participants were divided in to four location groups, with each group tasked with identifying a key area where foresight can be applied in their location, and how SDIP might be able to support a future exercise, and what steps might be needed to inform policy decisions.

Andrew Campbell, CEO for ACIAR highlighted the necessity of effective partnerships and ensuring the integration of foresight with wider food systems efforts for achieving sustainability, equitability and health for the future. These would remain a running theme throughout the workshop. Professor Prabhu Pingali set the foundation for the workshop by presenting the evidence on crop productivity, poverty, health, urbanization, and the regional nuances in South Asia. The role and importance of smallholder farmers and the middle-class in the region was emphasised, particularly in reference with transitioning value chains. Referring to the ‘Agriculture and Food Systems to 2050’ book published in 2018, Professor Pingali contextualized the importance of agricultural and food research for addressing the complex challenges the region and the world faces for the future. The presentation provided useful grounding for the rich picturing exercises for the day, where the participants developed a food systems map for their respective locations.

The importance of data was built on in Day 2 with an overview of key models and data sets that are commonly used in food systems, and an in depth analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of modelling. The IMPACT and APSIM models were used to discuss how models can be used more robustly and demystified terminology used in model-based data analysis. Other presentations examined the critical uncertainties around climate change, and presented examples where models have been used to inform decision-making in South Asia, specifically with the CCAFS project. These presentations were used to help the participants think of the data and modelling needs for addressing the food system challenges in their locations, and understanding the capabilities of models and existing data sets.

Key experts in the area led thematic sessions on the water, food, and energy nexus, women in food systems, agriculture, labour, migration, and livelihoods, and regional trade and markets. The outcomes from these groups were charted with causal loop diagrams to examine connections, reinforcing linkages, and dampening loops in the food systems. The scenario planning and visioning exercises built on these practical sessions to help the participants finalize their project briefs and identify preferable and plausible transformation pathways for the future.

The synthesis presentations and project briefs were discussed on Day 4, with each group presenting their ideas, the processes, data, and collaborations needed to achieve the, and their reflections on the foresight process. The event concluded with discussions on how the project ideas could be taken forward through the SDIP’s existing process, a reiteration of the value of foresight if it carried out with existing work in food systems, and a reflection on the necessity of collaboration in addressing the complex challenges that lie ahead.

Blog by Saher Hasnain – Research and Community of Practice Coordinator

“A diet for planetary health”, “1.5 degrees is too hot”, “business as usual is no longer an option” – these are headlines from three of a recent slew of 2018/19 reports on the future of our global food systems.

Let’s take stock of 12 of these reports and explore the common themes (here you can find a table summarising the reports). Judging by the number of reports and number of organisations waving a flag on the issue, there is clear anxiety about the future of our food systems (click here for a collection of key documents on food systems foresight from the past five years). Across the board, from science, business and government groups, the call is coming for a radical transformation of how our food systems function – with warnings that business as usual is not an option.

But there is also a paradox. The 2018 OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook predicts a gradual decline in commodity prices over the coming decade, with a return to prices seen in the early 2000s. Apparently, at least for the medium term the risks of high and fluctuating food prices have abated. One might imagine that pressure on the food system would have the opposite effect. Further, a downward trend arguably provides little incentive for a shake-up of the system or for the sort of political attention the 2008 food price crisis created. So, what is going on?

Perhaps we are experiencing the boiling frog syndrome – if thrown into hot water a frog will jump out, but placed in cold water and warmed up slowly the frog does nothing and ends up cooked. So, are medium-term prices simply not signalling the inevitable longer-term changes? Two other aspects need consideration. One, commodity prices do not, at least in the short term, reflect the huge externalities related to resource use, climate and public health. Two, risks to food systems are connected as much, if not more, to sudden and unpredictable shocks (drought, natural disasters, disease outbreaks, food safety scares) which are not easily reflected in trend analysis.

Thinking about all this quickly puts us in the terrain of food systems thinking – the relationships between production, distribution and consumption; the linkages with ecological, economic, social, and political environments; and the way complex systems behave. Interestingly the global debate since the 2008 food price crisis has shifted from one of food security to one of food systems – for good reasons as articulated in the reports from over the last year or so. Elsevier’s SCOPUS shows a threefold increase in annual publications on food systems since 2008.

So what are these 12 reports telling us, beyond the need for a food systems transformation? Five big themes emerge. First, there is pretty much universal agreement that food systems are central to all of the Sustainable Development Goals and that food issues affect the entire world and not just those suffering hunger in the South.

Second, the really big shift over the last decade has been from a focus on producing enough calories to ensuring good nutrition. Basically, as so prominently highlighted by the recent EAT Lancet Report, the world is heading toward a major health crisis by producing and eating way too much energy rich food (processed carbohydrates and sugars) and producing and eating way too little nutrient rich food. The costs to individuals and society of the growing burden of non-communicable diseases caused by a triple burden of under-nutrition, over-nutrition and micronutrient deficiencies are phenomenal. Undernutrition and hunger remain stubborn problems still affecting some 800 million people.

The third big issue is around the natural resources that will be needed to feed nearly 10 billion by 2050 if everybody aspires to the sort of high animal protein diet currently enjoyed by the more affluent consumer. The consensus is that this would require 50-60% more production than today which would be largely unsustainable using current production methods. The inefficiency of our current resource use in that 30% or so of food is lost or wasted from production to consumption is also a key message across the reports. The report from the World Resources Institute in particular highlights the interconnection of projected increase in food demand and land use, and the implications for greenhouse gas emissions if business as usual activities continue.

The fourth issue and the joker in the pack is climate change. Any mitigation of climate change must involve change in food systems. Food systems contribute about 1/3 of all emissions, and significantly increasing the consumption of animal-based proteins will dramatically compound this. For most of the most densely populated and poor areas of the world, climate change is likely to reduce yields and increase extreme weather events – droughts and floods. But areas in Canada and Russia may be able to produce more grain, impacting global trade regimes. A confluence of climate change induced shocks to the food system (for example droughts in a number of locations combined with a disease outbreak), either locally or globally has the potential to radically disrupt food supply, an increasingly risky prospect as the world heads towards 70% urbanisation.

ICIMOD’s ‘Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment’ is a good example of what this means at a more granular level in a particular region. The report points out that about three billion people depend for their food on the river systems that start in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. The report concludes that even a 1.5 degree increase in temperature will have catastrophic consequences for the mountains and downstream users of water resources.

The fifth critical issue raised in the reports is equity. Poor people spend disproportionately more of their income on food so are highly affected by food prices and are often unable to afford more nutritious food. At the same time in low-income countries, up to 60% of the population still work in agriculture and in middle-income countries it is up to 40%. However most of these people are poor or extremely poor. In middle income countries there is also very substantial employment in food processing and food services, often as part of an informal economy.

The consensus on what needs to be done is actually pretty clear across all the reports –

1. Shift towards healthy largely plant based diets,
2. Dramatically reduce food loss and waste,
3. Develop much more resource efficient and climate smart production systems that provide a wider diversity of healthy food, and
4. Ensure food systems provide inclusive (fair) economic opportunities for as many people as possible.

How to make this happen is the challenge we now face.

Scenario thinking underpins a number of reports. Somewhat simplified, there are essentially three-story lines. A business as usual approach that leads down the path of the problems outlined above. A winner takes all (and isolationist) story line of how the wealthy and wealthy countries manage to improve their lot and insulate themselves from the problems afflicting the wider mass of humanity (at least initially). An inclusive and sustainable story line where there is success in implementing the four strategies outlined above. The ‘Land Use and Food Security in 2050: a narrow road’ for example, presents five scenarios on land use and food security, but concludes that only one is likely to meet food security demands for the future while making responsible choices in food systems transformation.

Technology clearly has a critical role to play, yet none of the reports espouse simple technological fixes. For example, the World Economic Forum Report on technology and innovation notes “transformation requires a holistic approach engaging all stakeholders employing a wide range of policy, investment, management and behavioural strategies”. However, there is clearly a broad technological menu that can be drawn on including bioengineering, big data, ICT, blockchains, precision agriculture, alternative proteins.

Warnings are also sounded about who has power and control over markets and technology in food systems and what this can mean for equitable and inclusive systems, to benefit the many rather than the few.

Where does all this leave us?  The “what” needs to be done seems pretty clear, as do the reasons “why”. Where there is still a huge gap is in the “how”. This means that foresight efforts now need to shift towards a much more detailed analysis of pathways forward and consequences of the different trade-offs that may be involved. This will require a much more detailed and context specific analysis. Such work will require both investment and coordination to avoided fragmented and duplicated efforts.  Foresight4Food has been established to help catalyse collaboration in this direction.

Blog by Jim Woodhill – Foresight4Food Secretariat Lead

Click here for the complete workshop report and materials

With the Foresight4Food Initiative’s second workshop successfully wrapped up and follow-up activities underway, this post reflects on the event as a whole. Hosted in Montpellier with the excellent support of MUSE, CIRAD, GFAR, and ACIAR, the workshop brought together individuals from a diverse range of foresight institutions, organizations, and projects from around the world.

Exploring what foresight entails formed the foundation of the workshop, exemplified by a set of presentations on past and on-going foresight initiatives by workshop participants on the first day. Participants agreed that ‘foresight’ encompasses a host of different processes and steps, and instead of being solely combined to predicting the future, it provides the opportunity space of accomplishing many things. For example, foresight identifies trends and drivers within the food system (and others), weak signals, tipping points, ‘steam trains’, ‘black swans’, and unintended consequences of actions. It reframes narratives and problems that allow decision-makers to consider broader perspectives that include factors like technological, socio-political, and governance issues linked to the problem. Foresight allows one to acknowledge and understand the existing boundaries and rules of the system, and thus create a well-defined space within which actors can create creative opportunities and solutions.

This discussion on foresight is and what it can be then benefited from an exploration of the issues impacting methodology. A panel with stakeholders from CIRAD, IIASA, and IIED sparked a discussion about choices made in developing foresight methodologies and their impact on developing models and scenarios. Questions around stakeholder expectations, decisions on the timeframe and spatial scale of analyses, and operating with the differing agendas and priorities of the collaborators and stakeholders were raised and discussed. The value of open and accessible communication of foresight models and research was emphasised, but limitations around communicating complicated language to the wider public and policy-makers were explored, along with the underlying assumptions of different models.  While the lack of data in certain contexts can be a problem in creating useful models, the trap of too much data and its role in impacting economic results was also examined. The panel in discussion with the workshop summarized the issues with an emphasis on process instead of tools and results, the inclusion of technological change, social innovation, and the geopolitical dimensions of food system issues, and the value of bridging disciplines and approaches in future foresight approaches. The questions and themes raised in this panel proved valuable in thinking through the themes around the future of the Foresight4Food Initiative on the second and third days.

In discussion with the panel, and with Jim Woodhill’s framework for foresight approaches, ‘solutions’ to the methodological issues were explored. Creating emotional incentives for change, or the increased potential of the ‘emotional economy’, in combination with the difficult questions that foresight actors need to (but might not) engage with can be a useful way of encouraging the use of foresight in decision-making. It is however, important not to keep the focus on policy-makers only, but ensure a rich diversity of stakeholders, such as the private sector and youth groups. The value of instilling ‘future literacy’ in people, to ensure that the underlying anticipatory assumptions are acknowledged and managed at participatory foresight sessions, and to more broadly have the level of future literacy to have foresight oriented decision-making at all institutional and spatial levels. A common underlying theme to the discussions throughout the workshop was the value of food systems thinking. The significance of food system drivers (such as population growth, migration, climate change, etc.), the impacts of system-level shocks in the short and long-term, and the increasing number and magnitude of food system concerns in terms of health, environment, ethics, and economics influence the process and outcome of all major foresight initiatives and projects.

After a series of foundational plenaries and panel discussions, the workshop was focused on advancing the Foresight4Food Initiative. Working from the concept note and the outcomes of the first workshop in Oxford, the workshop organizers were keen on establishing future directions for the Initiative. Going into the working groups for each thematic area, the workshop had determined the following key principles and areas of interest for the Initiative:

• Considering foresight as a process towards achieving broader objectives
• Synthesis is a useful way of underlining differences and alternative approaches and narratives
• The Initiative must ensure that the right questions are being asked for the foresight process
• Interactions in a foresight process are better served by being circular and iterative instead of linear
• Creating ‘safe spaces’ within pathways for actors to find creative transformative opportunities and to reduce risk

The working groups then spent the major part of Day 3 at Agropolis International developing a detailed work plan and objectives for each thematic area. The outcomes from each working group can be found in the Workshop Report. In summary, the working groups concluded that there is great value in the Foresight4Food Initiative in continuing, but shifting its role towards a coordinating body with strong linkages with other convening bodies (such as CFS and GFAR), to accomplish its various stated goals. It was determined that future meetings with Foresight4Food must deliver on one of the objectives and themes and the time in between best served with determining funding sources and establishing a governance structure and advisory board for the Initiative. The workshop report, the outputs from the working groups, and the energy and momentum for the Oxford and Montpellier workshops will be taken forward with the help of the Steering Group towards transforming the Initiative to best serve the needs of the foresight community.

Blog by Saher Hasnain – Research and Community of Practice Coordinator

Knowing what the future holds is never easy, and as often as not our predictions can turn out to be quite wrong.

But some things we do know.  A sugary fatty diet with too little exercise will make us obese, with a high chance of ending up with diabetes.  If many of us follow this path the health costs to society will be sore.  Constantly cropping soils and not returning nutrients will lead to yield declines. Excessively over fishing will cause fisheries to collapse. Poor nutrition in childhood will lead to stunting with lifelong impacts.

If we piece together what we currently know about the ways we are consuming and producing food there are very good reasons to be very concerned, even highly alarmed about the long term implications.  There is growing widespread recognition that a massive transformation is needed in our food systems to tackle hunger, enable good health, protect the environment and ensure long-term food security.

Yet, many aspects of our food systems are trending the wrong way, and our efforts to change this seem badly aligned with the likely future consequences of not taking sufficient action soon enough.

Now already a decade ago, the global food price crisis of 2008 highlighted the social and political risks when things go wrong in the food system. In part, this prompted the UK Governments 2011 Foresight Study on the “Future of Food and Farming”.  The outcomes of which led the UK Chief Scientific Advisor to warn that the world was heading towards a perfect storm of increased demand for food, resource depletion and negative impacts of climate change.

But setting our food systems on a more sustainable and resilient path is a complex challenge with many interacting factors from local to global scales.  Change will require concerted and coordinated efforts from government and business. But what will motivate leaders to drive change and what will motivate citizens to demand change. And if there is such motivation for change how does one know the best thing to do.

This is where foresight comes in.  Not to try and predict the future,  but rather to intelligently engage citizens and leaders in a better understanding of what is currently going on, what the future consequence could be and what might be alternative pathways with more desirable outcomes.

Intelligent perspectives on the future requires science – to get the best data we can on what is currently happening; to explore and understand relationships between different parts of the system; to model how things could change; and, to invent new technologies and ways of doing things that would be an improvement.

However, while foresight needs science, foresight is not only about science.  Foresight requires informed dialogue between people, and it hinges on discussions about values and ethics, what are desirable futures and how these might be realised.

Foresight4Food is an emerging initiative supported by a widening group of international organisations, food systems researchers, business players and civil society organisations.  The collective aim is to enhance foresight and scenario analysis for the global food system.  Those involved recognise that while there is much food systems research, foresight, scenario analysis and modelling going on it is often fragmented.  There is a need for better synthesis, and for improvements in how food system changes are explained and visualised.  And, better connections are needed between science and processes of policy dialogue, business engagement and societal learning.

Jim Woodhill – Foresight4Food Initiative Lead

Honorary Research Associate, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave