foresight4food international workshop · 2. synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work 3....
TRANSCRIPT
Foresight4Food International Workshop
Summary of Proceedings
22-24 May 2018
1
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 0
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 0
1.1 Programme ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Day One – Tuesday 22nd May 2018 ................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Welcome to MUSE and the Foresight4Food Initiative............................................................ 2
2.2 Foresight Methodology ........................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Sharing Foresight Initiatives .................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Closing ................................................................................................................................... 10
3 Day Two – Wednesday 23rd May 2018.......................................................................................... 11
3.1 Scene-setting Presentations ................................................................................................. 11
3.2 The Foresight Proposition ..................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Emerging Food System Issues ............................................................................................... 14
3.4 Tracking Change in Food Systems ......................................................................................... 15
3.5 Perspectives from Key Stakeholder Groups .......................................................................... 17
3.6 Developing the Initiative – Initial Feedback and Working Group Session ............................ 20
3.7 Closing ................................................................................................................................... 23
4 Day Three – Thursday 24th May 2018 ........................................................................................... 24
4.1 Welcome to Agropolis International ..................................................................................... 24
4.2 Insights from NEPAD ............................................................................................................. 24
4.3 Taking the Initiative Forward: Working Group Session ........................................................ 24
4.4 Closing Comments from Patrick Caron ................................................................................. 33
5 Appendix A: Workshop Programme ............................................................................................. 34
6 Appendix B: Participant List .......................................................................................................... 37
List of Acronyms ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
AgMIP Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CASI Conservation Agriculture based Sustainable Intensification
CCAFS CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
CIRAD French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
DEVCO Development & Cooperation
DFID Department for International Development
ECI Environmental Change Institute
EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
FABLE Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land, and Energy Initiative
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database
FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
FReSH Food Reform for Sustainability and Health
GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation
GLOPAN Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition
ICASEPS Indonesian Centre for Agriculture Socio Economic and Policy Studies
IDDRI Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations
IDS Institute of Development Studies
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
IMPACT International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade
INRA National Institute of Agricultural Research
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPES-Food International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems
ISPC Independent Science and Partnership Council
K4D Knowledge, Evidence and Learning for Development
MAGNET Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool
MIRAGE Modeling International Relationships in Applied General Equilibrium
MUSE Montpellier University of Excellence
NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development
RIAPA Rural Investment and Policy Analysis
RUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SDIP South Asia Regional Development Program
SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
UN SDSN UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network
WEF World Economic Forum
WUR Wageningen University & Research
1
Summary The Foresight4Food Initiative was initiated by a group of international organisations, research
institutions, business networks, and donor agencies. It seeks to improve foresight and scenario
analysis for the global food system, and strengthen the links between science and forums for
dialogue. The May 2018 workshop was a follow-up to the successful first Foresight4Food workshop
held in Oxford in April 2017. This year’s event was hosted by the Montpellier University of Excellence
(MUSE) with support from ACIAR, GFAR, CIRAD, and the University of Oxford.
Alongside a space for networking and sharing between organisations interested in food system
foresight, the workshop focused on developing a clear strategy for how food systems foresight could
better meet the needs of policy, business, and civil society at different scales. The workshop was
attended by over 60 people representing more 40 organisations.
Over 25 different inputs were given by participants on their foresight related work.
Participants strongly supported the objectives and of the Foresight4Food Initiative and work to
developed action agendas for six themes:
1. Communities of practice for food system foresight users and providers
2. Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work
3. Foresight resource portal, dashboard and communication materials
4. Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional, and
national foresight and dialogue processes
5. Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues
6. Capacity development for enhanced foresight
It was clear from the meeting that there is a huge need and interest in designing narratives for food systems transformation for addressing the whole 2030 Agenda, at all scales from local to national, regional and global. Consequently, a forward-looking approach to food systems is necessary because of the shocks, stresses, and disruptions food systems will experience into the future - foresight methods can help us explore and respond to this turbulent future.
There are many different ways to consider foresight methods and the diversity is a richness and a wealth. Foresight4Food now needs to engage more widely as we move to ensuring improved foresight that can contribute meaningfully to the global dialogue and potentially support normative exercises on desirable paths for the transformation of food systems. Foresight4Food needs to be anchored with existing arenas of dialogue and policy convergence that have legitimacy. The initiative is seeking to provide intelligence and literacy about the future; thus must recognize the political dimensions of any forward thinking process. Key concluding points were: 1. To collectively continue with the Foresight4Food Initiative. It is needed and a good number of
individuals and institutions appear ready to commit themselves to follow-up. 2. Adopt a step by step process of planning and progressing, building on what exists and avoiding
reinventing of wheels. This implies moving beyond the provision of knowledge by demonstrating the capacity to provide intelligence through synthesis and meta-analysis based on transparency and valuing the diversity of foresight works.
2
3. Better identify the boundaries of how Foresight4Food will contribute in connection with stakeholders engaged in decision making and policy convergence.
4. Work towards a substantial rendezvous in 2020 that would draw on work and initiatives that can be mobilized over the coming 2 years and use the 2020 convening as a point to consider the merits, legitimacy, and viability of a larger scale normative foresight exercise.
5. Given the above it is possible to envisage the following activities being carried out over the next 2 years (resources depending):
• Continuing with the sharing, networking, and learning we have begun through an emergent community of practice
• Further developing a portal for collating and providing easy access to core foresight work (e.g. resource portal),
• Providing synthesis of existing work, • Supporting or fostering spin-off initiatives (application at regional, national, local
levels, and hotspots), as the ones suggested by GFAR • Working to anchor the initiative to legitimate decision making and policy
convergence institutions and forums; • Exploring how to look at the monitoring and evaluation of foresight processes
The implication for governance is that in the shorter term there can be a light advisory committee, and perhaps some associated science groups, to guide directions with legitimacy being given by others who are willing to associate with Foresight4Food as partners.
1 Introduction The May 2018 workshop was a follow-up to the successful first Foresight4Food workshop held in
Oxford in April 2017. This year’s event was hosted by the Montpellier University of Excellence
(MUSE) with support from ACIAR, GFAR, CIRAD, and the University of Oxford.
The Foresight4Food Initiative was initiated by a group of international organisations, research
institutions, business networks, and donor agencies. It seeks to improve foresight and scenario
analysis for the global food system, and strengthen the links between science and forums for
dialogue.
The Initiative emerged due to the recognition that foresight work is often fragmented, one-off, and
often not well synthesised or organised in ways that can meet the needs of users within the broader
foresight community. Foresight4Food aims to help provide a more integrated food systems
perspective that better connects concerns of environment, economy, and health, across production,
distribution, and consumption, while taking a global view of issues for emerging and developed
economies. The niche for Foresight4Food is to help strengthen global and regional capacities for
food systems foresight, so as to complement and not duplicate the efforts of other food and
agriculture related initiatives. A core function of Foresight4Food will be to create a community of
practice for providers and users of foresight that contributes to a better understanding of food
systems.
This workshop built on last year’s event. Alongside a space for networking and sharing between
organisations interested in food system foresight, the workshop focused on developing a clear
strategy for how food systems foresight could better meet the needs of policy, business, and civil
society at different scales. It examined key dimensions of food systems change and different
approaches to foresight. Outcomes from the workshop are being used to develop an action plan,
governance arrangements, and a resource mobilisation strategy for taking forward the
Foresight4Food Initiative.
1
1.1 Programme
The workshop programme was designed to enable participants to explore wide diversity of foresight
initiatives and programmes and share knowledge and experience on methodological and operational
issues of foresight within food systems. This workshop differed from the Oxford workshop in 2017
with having a key focus on developing detailed planning for the Foresight4Food Initiative going
forwards (see Appendix A for the workshop programme, and Figure 1 below on the overall workshop
process).
Figure 1 Workshop Process
1.2 Participants
Sixty participants attended and actively participated in the workshop (see Appendix B for the
participant list) representing more than 40 key international organizations, scientific institutions,
donor agencies, foundations, business communities, and youth groups. With a broader
representation than the 2017 workshop, the diversity and depth of expertise allowed for broadening
the experience to other stakeholders, and wider input for future planning of the Initiative.
2
2 Day One – Tuesday 22nd May 2018
2.1 Welcome to MUSE and the Foresight4Food Initiative
Patrick Caron kicked off the proceedings with a formal welcome to the Montpellier University of
Excellence (MUSE) and explained the reasoning behind hosting the follow-up event in Montpellier.
Dr Caron emphasised the key purposes of the meeting:
1. Offering an opportunity to engage as a community of practice, and present a space to
exchange ideas
2. Taking the Initiative forward by starting detailed planning on necessary activities
The diversity and range of food system foresight work was indicated, and the desire to complement
and not duplicate existing and past efforts. The unique organizational presence and support in
Montpellier was highlighted and the strong mandate for taking the Initiative forward was reiterated.
Saher Hasnain, a researcher with the Foresight4Food Initiative and the Environmental Change
Institute’s Food Systems Group thanked Patrick Caron and Jim Woodhill for their crucial role in
taking the Initiative forward since Oxford and went through the workshop process (see Figure 1
above). She introduced the background materials that had been shared with the participants and
presented an institutional and organizational map of key foresight players. Input on the map was
invited and the complexity and diversity of the food system foresight landscape was examined.
2.2 Foresight Methodology Following on the methodological themes identified in the 2017 Oxford workshop, Jim Woodhill
discussed a framework for understanding food systems foresight and scenario analysis (see Figure 2
below) focusing on aspects of prediction vs exploration, quantitative vs qualitative, risk vs
opportunities, social vs scientific processes, scale and time, policy and political influences, and the
context of complex systems. He explored ‘steam trains’ and ‘black swans’ in the context of systemic
risks and transformational opportunities and set the stage for a panel of experts to discuss their
work in the context of the key methodological aspects. Marie de Lattre-Gasquet (CIRAD), Petr Havlik
(IIASA), Robin Bourgeois (CIRAD), Xiaoting Hou-Jones (IIED), and Fabrice deClerck (EAT) presented
briefly on their organizations’ methodological approaches to foresight, which provided a useful
grounding before the day’s sharing of foresight initiatives.
3
Figure 2 Framework for Understanding Foresight
4
2.3 Sharing Foresight Initiatives Following on the success of the sharing sessions in the first Oxford workshop, representatives from
different organizations and institutions shared their initiatives in food systems foresight. The
sessions were useful in forming a foundation of information sharing and mapping out the diversity of
food system foresight work for the rest of the workshop without pretending to an exhaustive
mapping. Below are brief summaries of the inputs given and any associated presentations can be
found on the Foresight4Food website.
2.3.1 Keith Wiebe – IFPRI
Keith Wiebe presented an overview to IFPRI’s foresight activities, which take inputs from crop,
water, climate, and economic models, and produce outputs relevant for poverty, hunger, and the
environment, and the related SDGs. Modelling tools used include IMPACT, MIRAGE, and RIAPA,
while recent studies include the impacts of different investment strategies, costs of ending hunger,
and policy scenarios at different scales. The partners associated with IFPRI have different regional
mandates and enrich the tools used and research produced with context-specific insights. IFPRI
coordinates a food security portal, which is an information sharing platform intended to make their
research outputs more accessible and allow people to look at different scenarios, for different
commodities, in different regions, across timescales.
Figure 3 Keith Wiebe (IFPRI)
5
2.3.2 Fabrice deClerck – EAT & Bioversity International
With an overview into EAT’s activities, and the current EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet,
Health, Dr deClerck explained how EAT is focused on producing healthy and sustainable foods within
the planetary boundaries for a 2050 population. In the current capacities of food production, we are
not producing the ingredients needed for a healthy diet, and instead of just a calorie focus we need
to see how we are going to produce the right kinds of food in the future, and start now. He
highlighted EAT’s cross-institutional work with institutions like the University of Oxford, and the
Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use, and Energy (FABLE) Consortium, and its coordination with
IIASA, UN SDSN, and EAT. Through ‘scenathons’ for each country, the project’s activities are meant
to examine country level ambitions and to reach the pathways and targets set by the FABLE team.
He closed with EAT’s emphasis on collective narrative building, and creating space in which each
sector can meet and create the narratives they need to achieve their sustainability goals.
Figure 4 Fabrice deClerck (EAT)
2.3.3 Petr Havlik – IIASA
Explaining IIASA’s activities and projects, Dr Havlik focused on The World in 2050 project which is
using multi-participant activities to find pathways towards reaching the SDGs. Dr Havlik works on the
modelling of agriculture, forestry, and other land use sectors, and their integration with the energy
sectors. He explained how their approach allows them to participate in integrated assessments of
mitigation pathways. The models demonstrate the hypothetical impacts on highly ambitious
mitigation pathways for different countries for variables like calorie availability. Using a current
project as an example, he explained that their team is working on a model that separates the
production and consumption decisions, and are testing for assessment with extreme weather events
and potential stabilization policies.
6
2.3.4 Olivier Mora – INRA
Speaking about the foresight and simulation approaches to explore contrasted futures of land use
and global food security in 2050, Dr Mora contrasted the Agrimonde exercise (2007-2010) with the
Agrimonde-Terra exercise (2013-2016), and examined the scenarios of the latter. Agrimonde-Terra
was conducted with the collaboration of INRA and CIRAD, and adopted a scenario approach based
on morphological analysis, and scenario simulations with the GlobAgri quantitative platform with 14
world regions. The scenarios were based on a trend analysis of seven key drivers on land use and
food security, looking at the global context, climate change, diets, livestock, and cropping systems.
Two scenarios with extreme land use and food security consequences were ‘metropolization’ and
‘communities-collapse’, while the other three had reduced impacts on land use. These scenarios
have been used at national level to define research agendas, and Agrimonde-Terra is instrumental in
discussing land use and food security decisions with stakeholders.
2.3.5 Martin Melin – SLU
A new Horizon 2020 project, NEXTFOOD is focused on capacity building in agrifood systems, which
brings together 19 partners across the EU, and includes Egypt, India, Chile, and Ethiopia, with the
aim of developing new education and training systems for farmers, advisors, and other actors within
the food system to drive the transition towards sustainability. It will involve a skills inventory,
training sessions, 10 case studies, and an identification of the needs and gaps of knowledge. It will
challenge the traditional ‘commodity’ approach to learning and focus on co-creation of knowledge,
skills, and soft-skills, and will make policy recommendations promoting life-long learning.
2.3.6 Emile Frison – IPES-Food
The 27-member International Panel of Experts uses its legitimacy to bring major issues to decision
makers, and looks at the whole food system using a transdisciplinary approach. It takes a political
economy approach and examines issues of power in the food system, and identifies the factors that
prevent the evolution of current dominant systems. Using this approach, they aim to identify the key
intervention points in the system. This factor is then reflected by other speakers during the
workshop, particularly by Sean deCleene on Day 2. Mr Frison highlighted the panel’s recent reports
on impacts of health, concentration in agri-food through mega-mergers, horizontal and vertical
integration of food institutions, and are currently working on input that will influence the common
agricultural policy in Europe, are planning on convening a food and farming forum at the EU
Parliament in 2019. Mr Frison then discussed the work of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food,
which is working towards food system transformation. One of their key areas of work is on true cost
accounting with support from TEEB.
2.3.7 Thomas Arnold – European Commission
Thomas Arnold discussed the Food2030 institution within the European Commission. Food 2030
convenes annual High Level events with the objective of disseminating successful Research and
Innovation initiatives and contributing to the food nutrition and security science-policy debate. The
EC has also launched the JRC Competency Centre on Foresight in June 2018, which is a dynamic
collective intelligence system assessing 14 global megatrends relevant for Europe’s future.
7
2.3.8 Joost Vervoort (University of Utrecht)& Maliha Muzammil – (ECI)
The CCAFS project develops regional scenarios and uses them for national level policy making, and
brings stakeholders and policy makers together. Communities taking part in the project participate
in challenging policy-relevant scenarios, and use them as a lens to evaluate existing or planned
policies and plans to evaluate them for robustness. The process highlights and challenges existing
assumptions that underlie much of such decision-making. The process leads to finalized policies
(although this does not ensure effective implementation), the scenarios ensure that policies are
inclusive and robust, the process needs flexibility in the project, and a dynamic team in different
areas of the world, and close working relationships with existing policy networks. The RE-IMAGINE
project for anticipatory and climate governance takes the CCAFS objectives a few steps forward and
asks more critical questions around the politics of foresight. With CCAFS and RE-IMAGINE, Dr
Muzammil worked closely with the Bangladeshi planning commission to guide them towards a 5
year economic plan. Using country-specific scenarios, they explore what these futures mean for
Bangladesh, what actions are achievable, how robust the impact pathways are, and how they can be
made more robust.
2.3.9 Kuhu Chatterjee – ACIAR SDIP
Discussing the Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio in South Asia, Ms Chatterjee examined
the food-energy-water nexus in the eastern-Gangetic region of South Asia. The project focuses on
farmers in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. In the first phase, 75,000 farmers used farming practices
based on Conservation Agriculture based Sustainable Intensification (CASI), which has had positive
outcomes in terms of lowering input costs and increasing productivity. In Phase 2, food systems
foresight is one of the five key components of the project. However, engaging policy-makers in the
region in a foresight activity will prove challenging because of the focus on election cycles, a lack of
long-term plans, and difficulties in securing policy buy-in with critical actors.
2.3.10 Pedro L. O. de A. Machado – EMBRAPA
Mr Machado focused on Agropensa, a continuous foresight activity started by EMBRAPA in 2012
aimed at institutional development and as a tool for decision makers. Agropensa’s main objectives
are to monitor key trends and produce information for agricultural research. It is designed to be
anticipatory instead of reactive, and provide information for private organizations and food-related
decision makers. Agropensa has an observatory of trends, analysis and studies, and information
guiding better strategies. He highlighted their most recent Outlook 2030 that examines the future of
Brazilian agriculture in light of mega-trends
2.3.11 Zenia Tata – XPRIZE
Dialling into the workshop from the US, Ms Tata provided an overview of XPRIZE and their
motivations, and their role in foresight work. The underlying motivation of XPRIZE is to incentivize
people to develop futuristic innovations that can transform the trajectory of sectors. Their first
prizes were in the commercial space sector and then the future of medicine and mobility. Now with
a more defined foresight approach they aim for a confluence of technological and social norms. They
assemble platforms of big communities in a particular area, leverage existing research, put a futurist
slant on it in the search for innovation, conduct a deep STEEP analysis for a preferred future state,
and then back cast to understand the haps and white spaces. XPRIZE’s niche is in those gaps, and
particularly when multiple technologies meet in them, e.g. Avatar technology. They also draw on the
8
help of sci-fi writers to write stories around their scenarios to help understand how the technology
will be adopted by the people.
2.3.12 Rachid Serraj – ISPC, CGIAR
The work by the ISPC on key drivers builds on the existing work within and outside the CGIAR
system. The ISPC has started a 2-year process to support system-wide dialogue on foresight, through
a series of studies and workshops. Their focus on smallholder agriculture and future research for
development for the rural poor sets them apart from other initiatives. The process involves five
interacting themes with a methodological framework integrating quantitative and qualitative tools
and models. A key output from this process is a community of practice and a science forum that will
connect people from the region.
2.3.13 Lorenzo Bellu – FAO
FAO primarily uses three types of foresight exercises: Long-term global exercises using multiple
scenarios and building on existing FAO expertise (e.g. Future of Food and Agriculture), short to
medium-term global exercises run with OECD, which emphasise quantitate findings (the OECD/FAO
Outlooks), and thematic regional and country-based exercises (e.g. livestock). The step-wise and
iterative process of foresight and scenario development at FAO was explained. The talk was closed
with an emphasis on how foresight approaches must be used to move an organization forward.
2.3.14 Paula Chalinder (DFID) & Martin Broadley (University of Nottingham)
Ms Chalinder and Professor Broadley discussed the Knowledge, Evidence for Learning Development
Programme (K4D) at DFID, led by IDS which allows for learning across professional boundaries. A
food systems learning journey is a part of the program, connecting DFID staff and other UK
government policy makers working towards building a collective understanding and narrative
around food systems. They emphasised the need of keeping agri-food issues on the policy agenda,
and being mindful about who the foresight community engages with in the future.
2.3.15 Patrick Herlant – DEVCO/C1
The DEVCO/C1 part of the EC is concerned with rural development, food security, nutrition, and
resilience. Their current work on local agri-food analysis and foresight is partly influenced by the
Oxford 2017 Foresight4Food workshop. Mr Herlant highlighted that the rapid changes in the food
system have major implications for the EU particularly in terms of achieving the SDGs. It is therefore
crucial to manage policy trade-offs, e.g. between urban and rural development, and to ensure that
food security remains high on the policy agenda. It is further necessary to reframe traditional food
security investments in a wider food systems perspective and articulate the needs with a foresight
perspective. Their current project is expected to produce initial foresight-based local agri-food
typologies with their associated risks and opportunities to help structure their dialogue, produce
policy briefs, and fine-tune the typologies and methodologies in the second phase.
2.3.16 Charles Owuor – RUFORUM
Providing an overview of the development and evolution of RUFORUM, Mr Owuor provided insights
from the African perspective, and explored how the commitments and flagship programs connect
with RUFORUM Vision 2030. The flagship programs are designed around having universities
contribute to Africa’s growth and development (TAGDev), the designation of anchor universities for
higher agricultural education (RANCH), cultivating excellence in teaching and research (CREATE), and
creating a knowledge hub (K-Hub). RUFORUM’s foresight focus is organized around capacity
9
building, knowledge exchange and dialogue, an online platform, and a community of practice that is
currently 18000 members strong.
2.3.17 Saher Hasnain – ECI
The ‘Connecting local knowledge with global food system’ project is aimed at understanding the
country-level picture for the future smallholder agriculture in Ghana and Zambia, with key global
trends such as urbanization, climate change, and trade. The project hopes to challenge traditionally
dominant narratives around smallholder livelihoods, sustainable intensification, commercialisation,
and the role of smallholders in feeding the increasing global population. It will identify key gaps in
literature and data around smallholder agriculture and the transformations and trade-offs
associated with their development in the future.
2.3.18 Robin Bourgeois – CIRAD
Speaking on co-elaborative scenario building for action, Robin Bourgeois discussed the role of
anticipation in the empowerment process with a number of different groups across the world. The
project is focused on promoting futures literacy, encouraging people to inject the process with their
own knowledge and anticipation. He explained the research framework and the underlying
principles and activities, and presented a range of examples in which the framework has been
successfully applied.
2.3.19 Saeed Moghayer – WUR
MAGNET is a multi-objective foresight tool with a food systems perspective. It is used for global
projections on agriculture, food security, nutrition, and country-specific examples. While it is multi-
scale, allows for the evaluation of impacts, and for linking across other models, it has underlying
assumptions that reduce its reliability in certain situations: the use of representative agents,
optimizing behaviour, and an assumption of equilibrium. Reflecting on the compatibility with the
Foresight4Food Initiative, it was determined that a consistent methodological framework and a
community of practice would be useful going forward.
2.3.20 Sean deCleene – WEF
The WEF Food Systems dialogue was developed on the idea that the food system needs profound
changes, and the success of these changes will depend on trust between key stakeholders, and
useful conversations. The dialogue brings together EAT and WBCSD with WEF and will be focused on
drawing on the key priorities that need to be worked on, bringing in alternative voices, and
identifying the major areas of contention. Independently curated, the dialogues depend on the
expert inputs so that the critical issues and directions can be identified. For example, identifying how
to re-orient where the approximately half a trillion USD are invested annually in agri-food incentives
and subsidies.
2.3.21 Carolyn Mutter, AgMIP
AgMIP’s mission is to provide effective science-based agricultural decision-making models and
assessments of climate variability and change and sustainable farming systems to achieve local-to-
global food security. With a large and diverse network of partners, AgMIP models for sustainable
food systems, coordinates global and regional agricultural assessments, and produces knowledge
reports, models, and data. It conducts regional integrated assessments that are characterized by an
iterative approach with co-designing elements with the stakeholder groups, and conducts analysis
on a multiscale and transdisciplinary basis.
10
Presentations have been made available on the Foresight4Food website.
2.4 Closing The first day was closed with a formal drinks reception, tours of the exceptional facilities at the
Montpellier University of Excellence, and a warm welcome from the office of the Mayor of
Montpellier by Marion Chantal.
Figure 5 Formal welcome to MUSE and Montpellier
11
3 Day Two – Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Day 2 started with a formal introduction to the site from Patrick Caron and Nathalie Modjeska, and a
reiteration of the objectives of the workshop.
Figure 6 Patrick Caron opens Day 2
3.1 Scene-setting Presentations
3.1.1 David Nabarro
Joining remotely, David Nabarro offered his perspectives on foresight, how he has used it in his
career, and examined key characteristics he considered important in moving the Initiative forward.
He emphasised the importance of defining and articulating the problem being addressed while
recognizing the difficulty in approaching the ‘totality’ of the problem. Using the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development to examine foresight, Mr Nabarro acknowledged that despite the
complexity of the plan, it is the first real effort on a universal plan recognizing the interconnections
of the human endeavour; it is people-centric, and designed to leave no one behind. Achieving the
future indicated by the 2030 Agenda would require transformational change with consent and
mutual understanding between all involved parties, people working together towards a shared
narrative, and to ‘nudge’ systems into a better way of working. The presentation ended with the
recognition of the complexity and messiness of the system and a call to tidying up the food system
foresight landscape to an acceptable degree of unification and governability.
12
Figure 7 David Nabarro (UN)
3.1.2 Melissa Wood (ACIAR) & Mark Holderness (GFAR)
Presenting their interest and commitment to the Foresight4Food Initiative, Melissa Wood explained
ACIAR’s background, its cross-scale and cross-sectoral partnerships and their use of foresight in
programming, policy and in designing a broader and ambitious future-looking program. Reiterating
the objectives for this workshop, she emphasised how the shared commonalities and the richness
and diversity represented during the workshop will be valuable in drafting the future steps for the
Initiative.
Mark Holderness started with GFAR’s focus on foresight in recent years, and discussed how the
fragmentation and under-resourcing of global food systems are driving a need for global
connectivity, empowerment of communities for their futures, and a need to work through our
communities to get access to the relevant networks for creating a more desirable future for our food
system.
Figure 8 Melissa Wood (ACIAR)
13
3.1.3 Irene Annor-Frempong, FARA
Dr Annor-Frempong presented an overview of the initiatives and projects in Africa, such as FARA,
CAADP, and the Malabo commitments. While there are significant transformations needed in Africa
to help with yield improvements and market access, there is comparatively little investment in
resolving these issues. However, the networks and initiatives she discussed are attempting to
address them, particularly through working with farmers in order to achieve the SDGs, improve their
livelihoods, and ensure that the markets are working for their benefit as well. Referring to Martin
Bwalya’s talk on Day 3, she pointed to the importance of CAADP in this space and discussed how the
framework is encouraging countries to work towards a common agenda and priorities and linking
people and institutions up in an effort to fast-track the progress towards Agenda 2063. In this
scenario, foresight would be a useful process to complement the existing processes and initiatives,
achieving the SDGs, and the Malabo commitments.
Figure 9 Irene Annor-Frempong (FARA)
3.1.4 Marco Cantillo, FAO
Presenting virtually, Mr Cantillo spoke on the systemic risks and challenges for food and agriculture.
Systemic risks to the food system have the potential for challenging different aspects of food
security by disrupting sustainable supply of food and services. Global trends inflict systemic risks on
the food system, e.g. population increase with income growth drives agricultural demand,
agricultural investment favours high income countries, and GHG emissions stress natural resources
that agri-food systems depend on. Using data from FAOSTAT, these trends were projected over time
and their severity in relation to food systems was discussed. In this context, it will be challenging to
sustainably improve productivity to meet the global food demand, ensure a sustainable resource
base, and prevent transboundary and emerging food system threats. Overall, some of the critical
challenges facing the global food system include reducing inequality, building resilience against
natural disasters and conflict, addressing governance needs, and ending hunger and malnutrition in
all its forms. FAO’s foresight exercises therefore examine possible pathways of transformative
14
development, help identify critical and uncertain trends, and provide insight into the feasibility of
alternative pathways.
3.2 The Foresight Proposition
Presenting on the need for the Foresight4Food Initiative, Professor Tim Benton began with
contextualizing the issues within the food system. With significant differences in what the world is
and should be eating and producing there are clear problems within the food system that need to be
resolved for current and future populations. Focusing on food system transformations also have the
added benefit of influencing all the SDGs, and the need for transformation has been acknowledged
by key organizations within the field. Therefore, ‘business as usual’ cannot be the path for the
future.
Reiterating the foresight framework as presented by Dr Woodhill on Day 1, Professor Benton said
that enhanced foresight is critical for all decisions regarding food systems transformations. The
existing foresight work is fragmented with a varying range of assumptions driving different
conclusions and with limited connection, communication, and synthesis for the foresight
community. The Initiative is meant to support food system transformation through brokering
optimal use of foresight processes and methodologies and strengthening interdisciplinary capacities
for collaboration and research. Connecting the Initiative’s activities to five key areas of future work,
Professor Benton prepared the session for the upcoming working group consultations.
Figure 10 Prof Tim Benton
3.3 Emerging Food System Issues
Providing an overview of the CFS and the HLPE, Professor Rami Zurayk explained the process by
which the HLPE engages with and produces its series of expert reports. He then explained the critical
and emerging issues the panel is currently engaging with:
Anticipating interconnecting futures of urbanization and rural transformation – in order to
explore how the increasing urban populations can be fed alongside rapid rural
transformation and how urban diets are changing in response
Conflict, food security, and nutrition – as conflict has a major effect on food security, it is
important to add resilience to a food system before conflict takes place. It is also necessary
15
to examine the role of women in food security during conflicts. These findings draw on and
will be relevant to the current situation in Syria
Inequality – addressing vulnerability and the needs of marginalized groups in these areas of
concern. While power relations are a significant factor in this emerging issue, it is vital
recognize that power is a constant running thread through all of these
Impact of international trade – on food security and nutrition
Agroecology – the status and role of agroecology in the context of uncertainty and change
Agrobiodiversity and genetic diversity – in addressing food security and nutrition for a
transforming future population
Food safety – a significant problem now, which will continue to be a major food security and
safety issue in the future
New technology – what does innovative and developing technology have to offer for the
future of food and how can we forecast this?
Governance – who are the people and institutions making the decisions and how is (and
should) the food system be governed
Figure 11 Prof Rami Zurayk
3.4 Tracking Change in Food Systems
John Ingram (ECI) provided a refresher for the food systems concept, examining food system
‘activities’, carried out by food system ‘actors’, influencing and influenced by a range of ‘drivers’,
resulting in ‘outcomes’. These outcomes are then connected with a range of environmental and
health problems, such as antimicrobial resistance in livestock and humans.
Connecting the food systems with foresight, Dr Ingram highlighted the importance of stresses and
weak signals, reflecting on Dr Woodhill’s earlier talk on the foresight approach. He explained that in
food systems foresight, it is necessary to differentiate between a ‘stress’ and a ‘shock’, or an
‘interruption’ and a ‘disruption’, as both situations occur over different time scales. He highlighted
that while many problems are discussed in the food system foresight world, it is important to note
that there are many positive avenues that have not been adequately explored, such as the potential
16
of multiple options for cooperation, which once mapped and governed, offer multiple plausible
futures.
Reiterating the value of identifying drivers and big issues in the food system, Dr Ingram asked the
workshop participants to self-organize into groups, examine the infographics put up on the walls and
think about the information provided in terms of the aspects of the food system and their
implications for foresight.
Some of the key themes emerging from these discussions are listed below:
Increasing crop losses and waste, alongside increasing yields – is the food system becoming
less efficient? How can foresight help optimize it?
Micronutrient deficiencies and bio-fortification in relation with food prices and markets for
poor and nutritionally deficient populations
How can foresight help us think about technology and value-chains methods in terms of
food affordability and availability?
How can foresight help us explain and avoid the mismatch between food production and
consumption?
Cultural diversity of diets
Understanding the implications of shocks for food system actors
Which levers and choices can be emphasised on because of their potential for amplification
How to re-orient agri-food business and current investments to arrive at desired futures?
How can foresight help us short-cut impacts like obesity and diabetes in efforts to achieve
zero hunger?
How can you best use the marketing machinery of the private sector in a positive way for
building a positive food future?
Figure 12 John Ingram (ECI)
17
Figure 13 Examining Infographics
3.5 Perspectives from Key Stakeholder Groups
3.5.1 Sean deCleene – Private Sector, WEF
Reflecting on his career within the private sector, Mr deCleene focused on the value of creating
‘tipping points’ linked to foresight within the food system instead of trying to achieve incremental
changes. While large and small private enterprises may differ in their timeframes of response, they
still need tipping points in order to make major ideological and operational shifts. Given these
realities, it becomes important to identify the critical nodes of change in the systems, the linkages
between the critical areas of interest, and what champions and critical actors need to be brought
into the discussion to create the tipping point. It will be important to create a game changing space
with a major player within the field (e.g. ICT companies) and cultivate their ability with a foresight-
oriented approach to create an obvious tipping point.
Figure 14 Sean deCleene (WEF)
18
3.5.2 Agnes Martin - Private Sector, Danone
Representing Danone, Ms Martin highlighted that as a key player in the food field discussions around
food and foresight are critical, particularly around the identification of big trends. She explained the
importance of their participation in the FReSH Initiative, which is a platform of 40 companies trying
to achieve sustainable diets through a variety of ways. She highlighted the four key priorities that
Danone would be working on in the future, besides their work with FReSH:
1. Food loss and waste
2. Dietary shifts
3. Food supply chains
4. True value of food
She explained that Danone recognizes their role in bringing about change in the above-mentioned
priorities, but as a big company are fairly less flexible in the magnitude of change they can make,
particularly because of pressure from retailers. In spite of this, they are moving towards a more
consumer-centric approach. She closed her talk on the importance of moving from punishment
towards incentive in driving transformative change.
Figure 15 Agnes Martin (Danone)
3.5.3 Achmad Suryana – Policy, ICASEPS
Professor Suryana briefly explained the current food system development mechanisms in Indonesia,
which involves eleven ministries (each with their own differing priorities) at the national level. With
a decentralized system that gives significant autonomy at district levels, the system makes
coordinating and integrating food systems policies extremely challenging and with a major
underlying political aspect. In this particular context, he saw the Foresight4Food Initiative serving the
following functions:
Introducing the foresight approach to top management of food system actors, e.g. ministers
Empowering planning units in each related ministry with the foresight approach
Transferring knowledge to selected research and academic institutions
Easy access to sources of knowledge on foresight and food system issues
Exchange of information and experience of the Initiative through workshops and training
19
Figure 16 Prof Achmad Suryana (ICASEPS)
3.5.4 Paula Chalinder – Donor, DFID
Ms Chalinder emphasised that the actors in this field often have multiple roles. DFID for example, is
a donor while also being a user of foresight data and analysis. She highlighted that while further
work on developing foresight analysis is an uncontested and valuable need, it is important to
evaluate who is using this information right now. Being mindful about bringing together and
activating foresight analysis with a theory of change, and deciding how stakeholder groups use their
collective time and commit to a deliberate process to make that change happen is going to be an
enormous success in this area. She reflected Sean deCleene on the importance of leadership,
governance, and representativeness going forward, and the need of making these decisions as early
in the process as possible.
3.5.5 Ivan Kent – Global platform, GLOPAN
Giving an introduction to GLOPAN, Mr Kent explained how the panel is interested in using foresight
analysis at country levels, using their recent foresight report as an example. He discussed how
GLOPAN uses their convening power to communicate the results of their reports to the countries in
question by engaging with local leaders and decision-makers to connect with their own interests.
They focus on communicating their findings in ways that answer key questions like how the big
issues influence the local stakeholders, the situation and data in their country and region, what
solutions have worked in other parts of the world, and what recommendations are suggested.
3.5.6 Kimberly Pfeifer – Civil Society, Oxfam
Reflecting on her experience at bridging Oxfam and their civil society partners with the research
community in the agriculture and food space, Dr Pfeifer gave an overview of some of Oxfam’s
activities: trend and horizon scanning for strategy planning, global web-based dialogue platform on
the future of agriculture, scenario and foresight activities with stakeholders, a scan of promising
innovations in Africa, and global mapping of food systems. She finds that while the efforts are
rewarding, ‘bridging’ is a very difficult process requiring persistence and humility. Unlike other
sectors, the civil society is behind in embracing foresight, and would need a strong evidence base for
understanding its value for them. Data transparency and accessibility is a crucial barrier for them in
20
engaging with the field, demonstrating the value of foresight as a viable mechanism in engaging with
government and private sectors, and to adapt and respond to the shifting and shrinking space
available to them would be the most important role the Initiative could play in the field.
3.5.7 Sébastien Treyer – IDDRI
Reflecting on the learnings from the six foresight workshops held for the GCARD 2010 and 2012, the
key messages on foresight producers emerged around the necessity of community of practice
(through structured and organized discussions among foresight producers that increases capacity of
anticipation), rely on a pluralism of approaches, and ensure that existing and future foresight
frameworks are challenged and questioned by the community. He highlighted the foresight is not
just about producing scenarios, but also how the discussion is organized. The implicit assumptions
must be challenged, which is why a pluralistic debate is necessary – a key role for the
Foresight4Food Initiative.
3.6 Developing the Initiative – Initial Feedback and Working Group Session
Day two ended with an introduction to the working groups for Day 3 and a plenary discussion on the
relevance of the Forsight4Food proposition.
Initially five focus areas for Foresight4Food were proposed:
1. Communities of practice for food system foresight users and providers
2. Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work
3. Foresight resource portal, dashboard and communication materials
4. Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional, and
national foresight and dialogue processes
5. Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues
Following discussion it was agreed that these were the appropriate priorities but that a sixth area
should be added, that was initially conceived as cross cutting:
6. Capacity development for enhanced foresight
21
Figure 17 working group session
Feedback on the key areas of focus for the Initiative were charted out in a mind map following
feedback from the room, reproduced below in Figure 18. Note that the numbers indicate the
Initiative’s activities as described in the Concept Note.
Figure 18 Key focus areas for the Initiative
Feedback on the on the Foresight4Food proposition and concept note was overall positive with clear
support for taking the initiative forward around the focus areas identified. Within this context
additional feedback was:
Foresight needs to be seen not as an endpoint but a tool for broader objectives and so
Foreisght4Food needs to make its wider purpose very explicit.
There is a need to provide a synthesis of foresight works and information in ways that are of
value and interest for ‘end-users’. A smart and transparent way is needed to explain where
and why foresight studies arrive at different conclusions or perspectives and controversies
(organise controversies, analyse it and be transparent about it).
Foresight4Food can help ensure that researchers are asking the right questions and with
linking them and end-users.
It will be critical to focus on national and regional scales as well as the global and important
to work on foresight that is relevant to local and national scales.
22
It is crucial for foresight to be a process of engaging stakeholders in how problems are
framed and understood, rather than just focus on problem solving.
It is important to emphasize the whole story about food systems including both risk and
opportunities.
While capacity building for foresight is a cross cutting need it also needs to be emphasised as
a key focus area on its own, otherwise there is a risk it will be neglected.
Foresight4Food needs to recognise that developing foresight will be an iterative and
“circular” process rather than a linear one.
Important to look at how foresight help to bring about change so need to focus on “theory
of change” for foresight with clear pathways indicators related to drivers, actors, activities,
and outcomes.
Community of practice is important but need to carefully understand what is needed to keep
the Community of Practice together? Important to explore ways of setting up a citizen
community of practice and not just having purely organizational community of practice.
Important issues to include in the Initiative: energy, micronutrients, the how of managing
demand, fisheries, etc.
Be aware of private sector actors’ involvement. Identify tipping points, game changers (also
outside food sector: ICTs and Insurance), and build leadership roles to attract private sector
players.
Create “safe spaces” within the pathways in which innovators and entrepreneurs could work
together with other actors to find opportunities and reduce risks.
The key aspects of the feedback were also charted out in a mind map reproduced below in Figure
19:
Figure 19 Feedback on concept note
23
3.7 Closing
Professor Andrew Campbell, ACIAR presented the closing comments for Day 2, reflecting on the
inputs and discussions thus far. The richness and diversity within food systems foresight was
acknowledged, and the organizing team, particularly the efforts of Dr Woodhill, Dr Benton, and Dr
Caron was thanked for the effort put in the development of the conceptual framework. While there
may be a tension between those within the foresight field who are skilled at examining and adding
to the depths of methodologies, tools, and models, and those who ‘want to save the world’, it is vital
to acknowledge that both schools of practice are necessary and important. Expressing his pleasure
at the evidence of memory in workshops like this, he said that it is essential that new initiatives build
on past events, instead of duplicating and reinventing.
Comparisons with the IPCC presented a useful heuristic device, particularly in terms of common
goals: while the IPCC collective may have diversity in ways of achieving the goal around
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is clear consensus on the goal. This
may not be true for the foresight in food systems community. However, that may not be a
drawback, because the initiative can help humanity identify the kind of food system they want, and
ways of achieving it. This would be particularly important in creating a healthy and sustainable food
system, where foresight will play a crucial role in illuminating trends for transformation.
Touching on the discussions around synthesis, he said that synthesis exercises must be driven by
user needs and that such exercises can and should take multiple forms beyond a publication, i.e.
events or training courses. In ACIAR’s experience, a good synthesis product is rarely a publication,
and usually a product with a strong participatory dimension. He said that it would be vital to
contribute to the knowledge seeking behaviour of policy makers, by understanding the knowledge
products they need, and by becoming a well-respected and well-connected trusted source they can
draw upon. He closed with emphasising that the messiness and plurality within this field is a strength
and he would be keen in seeing how the Initiative will leverage their knowledge and skills in
managing and coordinating the food systems foresight field.
24
4 Day Three – Thursday 24th May 2018
4.1 Welcome to Agropolis International
Bernard Hubert, former chair and current advisor of Agropolis International chair opened the day
and welcomed the participants to Agropolis. He described the diversity of membership of the
Agropolis association and highlighted that because of their engagement with food, agriculture, and
biodiversity, and the participation of key research organizations from other countries, Agropolis
International is key stakeholder in the food system foresight world.
Reflecting on Andrew Campbell’s closing comments from Day 2, Bernard agreed on the strength in
diversity in the foresight partners, reiterated that foresight is a learning process for everyone
involved, and encouraged creativity and exploratory design in the collective efforts towards
innovation.
4.2 Insights from NEPAD
Presenting virtually, Dr Martin Bwalya focused his presentation on three key issues. First, to see how
foresight can complement the activities aimed at achieving Africa’s Agenda 2063. Although foresight
is a valuable tool in designing solutions, it is necessary to ensure coordination to address the
fragmentation of many initiatives, and provide capacity for the relevant user groups. Crucially,
examination is needed to see how foresight can be made relevant and compelling for politicians with
a very short ‘lifespan’ in the government. Secondly, identifying and cultivating the conditions needed
for the success of the Foresight4Food Initiative in the context of value addition. Dr Bwalya
considered that the participation arrangements across sectors (inclusivity and support for practical
applications), problem-solving oriented foresight (understanding contextual problems), governance
that leverages existing collaborations, and providing appropriate capacity building support would be
vital. Finally, NEPAD is working already to consolidate its capacities on foresight by conducting
future-oriented food system studies looking at pathways to zero hunger by 2025, diversity in food
baskets in the context of climate change, etc. These activities are responding to an active demand
for projections and future-oriented knowledge products by CAADP member states, and those
interested in achieving Agenda 2063.
4.3 Taking the Initiative Forward: Working Group Session
Building on the working group session from Day 2, Jim Woodhill reminded the working groups to
examine the purpose of each theme under examination, consider the broad outcomes, the activities
and partners necessary for achieving those outcomes, and explore the different levels of
implications for each area. The workshop used ‘ritual dissent’ as a process of getting feedback and
reworking arguments and business plans. Two rounds of ritual dissent were conducted, ensuring
that each group got feedback from at least two others, and had the opportunity to process and
integrate the input into their plans.
25
Figure 20 'Ritual dissent'
After lunch, participants from each group reported back their key findings to the room. Professor
Rami Zurayk then chaired a session on a discussion of the anticipated governance for the Initiative
going forward. The following themes and messages emerged:
Perceptions of the Foresight4Food Initiative:
There is definite value of bringing together the diverse stakeholders around the common
purpose
Important to have clarity in ultimate objectives of the Initiative
Potentially too ambitious in its mandate – need to develop step by step
Time will be needed to precisely develop the activities and the tools to support the work
would be helpful to map the relationship between the Initiative’s objectives, user needs, and
providers
Examine the foreseeable risks if the Initiative were to fail
The foresight process and anticipatory could be used to explore the future of the Initiative
itself – perhaps more of such process could have been used in the workshop
Governance:
Need vision and ambitious thinking to drive the process
Needs to be an open and flexible structure with not too much of a monitoring or controlling
superstructure
Need to have criteria for who is engaged, partnering or funding to ensure quality
management processes, credibility and transparency
Need to be clear on different models - a forum for developing innovative and creative ways
of thinking of the future or, a closed system of future-enlightened experts to guide people to
action, the latter is not desirable
A decision would be needed on the independence and/or the neutrality of the governance
group
Identify clear mechanisms for determining membership or representation in the steering or
advisory groups
26
Link with existing bodies with legitimacy and convening powers, e.g. CFS
Potential for organizing the effort into three groups, i.e. one for handling
comparison/synthesis of the technical aspects of foresight, one for exploring potential
communities, and a third coordinating body working between the first two
Need sufficient legitimacy and tangible governance to encourage commitment of time,
expertise, and funding from participating organizations
Foresight approach and method:
Need a process of qualifying foresight methods and engaging the foresight actors
A food system approach is necessary to overcome the fragmentation in the food and
agriculture landscape
Need to ensure a focus that includes southern countries within a global food system
approach
Important to ensure, move to, a demand-driven way of supporting foresight rather than a
science supply-driven exercise
Help to identify where food systems related academic studies could be strengthened within
a curriculum on food system foresight
There is real value in creating accessible and understandable overall approach to foresight
for those working in the sector
Change is often driven by emotions not just facts so need to understand better the link of
foresight to the emotions of change processes and how perspectives change (in private
sector, politicians, industry, citizens, etc.)
Foresight is dealing with highly complex interactions and so understanding complexity
thinking as a foundation for foresight is critical
Need to link with wider issues such thinking as ecosystem services and integrate into
foresight to bring added value
Partners, Practitioners, and Activities:
Need to be clear on what activities would be core to Foresight4Food for its complementary
role to other works and which are borderline
Important to identify clearly the institutions who will summarise and make the foresight
method and information available
Create a database of existing resources that can function as a resource for all foresight work
Identify what capacity development is needed at what scales to support foresight
Develop mechanisms to nurture the diversity of perspectives, cultural systems of thinking,
and initiatives
Foresight activities have the potential of influencing people and ecosystems
Find ways to work around the risk of competing objectives between foresight partners,
despite shared primary objective
Ensuring inclusivity and representation by relevant and necessary stakeholder including from
wider stakeholder groups such as food industry, military, insurance, etc.
From this meeting it is necessary to have greater input from foresight practitioners to turn
this planning into practical action
27
Value in engaging with the ‘users’ as practitioners in developing narratives and testing the
future
Need for full-fledged partnership with capacity building (instead of symbolic representation)
of under-represented groups such as youth organizations
Each group’s conclusions are summarized below, with each action being taken forward by the
Steering Group in the upcoming months:
4.3.1 Theme 1: Communities of Practice for food system foresight users and providers
Purpose:
Promoting, enabling and improving interaction and credibility for stakeholders in foresight activities
to enable food system transformation
Needs:
Information synthesis and organization
Methodology development and improvement
Co-creation of narratives
Inclusiveness in foresight communities
Justification:
A need for cross-cutting, accessible, and credible communities of food system foresight that allow
and encourage creative dialogue, collaboration, and broad and inclusive participation
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Civil society, business, military, agri-business stakeholders, developing country governments, policy
makers and researchers
Role of F4F:
Central coordinating role for providing the drive and ownership for the community of practice
Resource Need:
1. Individuals for developing and maintaining an online community of practice
2. Framework for the organization and support of space and events (e.g. webinars and blogs)
for information exchange and creative dialogue
3. Social media experts for creating and maintaining a communications strategy for the
community
Process and Activities:
A series of cross-cutting activities contributing towards knowledge brokering and are focused on
practitioners and users of foresight processes:
1. Creating and managing a directory of key foresight providers and users
2. Organizing and supporting space and events for creative dialogue and learning
3. Sharing data, methodologies, processes and models
28
4. Organizing foresight technology events to promote cross-fertilisation and active engagement
Implications (organization and governance):
A cross-cutting and brokering hub of activities and communities that can provide credibility and
trustworthiness.
4.3.2 Theme 2: Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work
Purpose:
Analysing, mapping, and synthesising food systems foresight studies in order to support the
knowledge and intelligence needed to support transformative change.
Needs:
Database of foresight processes and initiatives
Community of foresight practitioners and researchers who can participate in synthesis
activities
A well-mapped out landscape of gaps, priorities, and assumptions within the field
Justification:
There is a need for knowledge and intelligence that can support the transformative change enabling
sustainable development, particularly for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development this
requires a better synthesis of food systems foresight work.
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Knowledge producers and knowledge users in foresight to allow for feedback, but particularly key
research institutions and global agencies working at national, regional and global scales.
Role of F4F:
Multiple roles in brokering, mentoring and networking to create processes that can be used by
national and regional systems, there is current no institution supporting this function.
Resource Need:
Experts for conducting the analyses and syntheses exercises
Coordinators for engaging the community of practice
Web portal for providing a common space of engagement and information sharing
Process and Activities:
1. Creating a framework that can support different syntheses for multiple purposes
2. Engage the community of practice for agreement on principles, boundaries, and typologies
of syntheses
3. Populate and analyse the current food system foresight landscape
4. Disseminate results in an accessible form
29
Implications (organization and governance):
An organizational system that calls for multiple specialisations to help with brokering, mentoring and
networking, with the accessible networks and partnerships that lend the technical legitimacy that
synthesis exercises will require.
4.3.3 Theme 3: Foresight resource portal, dashboard, and communication materials
Purpose:
Attracting attention towards foresight in food systems, ‘taking temperature’ of the field, fostering
information exchange, analysis of information, and providing a space for information exchange and
discussion.
Needs:
A systematic needs assessment carried out with users is needed, however, crucial needs are:
A search engine and resource repository pointing people on who is doing what, where
Dashboard on key trends and drivers in food systems
Resources on foresight, such as models, approaches, and methods
Topic and theme clustering
Typology of foresight approaches
Communication between users
Justification:
Communication and resources are needed to empower users to use foresight work on agri-food
systems.
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Government, agribusiness, civil society, and universities – the emerging network involved
Foresight4Food with additional engagement from regional and national partners.
Role of F4F:
Depending on the resources available, F4F can function as a key point of contact and coordination
from which the above activities can be run.
Resource Need:
0.5 FTE communication manager/strategist for Year 1 & 2 – for creating and managing a
database of users
Information specialist for Year 1 – for organizing information and managing search capacity
Web designer for Year 1 – creating a crowdsourced information space and the dashboard
Minimum funding: 500,000 USD cash, with equivalent in kind
Process and Activities:
1. Creating and managing users
2. Creating an architecture for organizing foresight information
30
3. Creating a ‘customer service’ tool for managing risk and addressing user needs
4. Creating an interactive and accessible dashboard of information
5. Developing a stratified communication and advocacy strategy based on audience
segmentation
Implications (organization and governance):
Minimalist organizational structure, acting as a point of coordination for the team running the
resource, and eventually the community of practice.
4.3.4 Theme 4: Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional,
and national foresight and dialogue processes
Purpose:
Developing a brokering hub to support location or thematic focused foresight exercises to enable
them access to methodology, data and foresight facilitation expertise and connect to a wider body
of food systems foresight work.
Needs:
Expertise and competencies for translating the demands and results of foresight activities
Clarifying the roles and activities of the different stakeholders in a foresight process
Identifying the demands and needs for foresight processes
Managing ‘spill-over’ across national boundaries
Access to good practices and avoiding ‘re-inventing the wheel’
Justification:
A need for supporting foresight processes in a systemic way across scales for agri-food stakeholders,
translating the demands and results from foresight processes, and the need for improving future
policies in this field.
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Community of practice, line ministries, GFAR, FARA, NEPAD, policy makers, donors, civil society
actors, and business networks.
Role of F4F:
As a brokering hub for crucial foresight partnerships and associated activities.
Resource Need:
1. Dedicated individuals for managing partnerships
2. Resource portal through which key partners can exchange foresight materials and insights
3. Individuals and resources for optimising access and improving accessibility of foresight
resources
31
Process and Activities:
(An iterative set of activities)
1. Promoting forward thinking activities in agri-food systems across spatial scales
2. Connecting policy makers with foresight practitioners
3. Catalysing and translating foresight and anticipatory activities
4. Ensuring accessibility of foresight materials
5. Facilitating experience sharing by foresight practitioners and policymakers
6. Monitoring, evaluating, and conducting quality control of foresight activities
7. Reducing transaction costs in engaging ‘users’
Implications (organization and governance):
A central coordinating role that manages partnerships and networks, emphasising legitimacy and
accountability.
4.3.5 Theme 5: Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues
Purpose:
Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues to ensure a full systems
approach and that foresight studies remain current.
Needs:
Individuals for carrying out foresight research and analyses
Managed insights from existing institutions and forums (e.g. HLPE)
Resource for running major foresight event in 2020
Undertaking an initial gaps analysis
Justification:
Addressing the SDGs require a holistic food system perspective and better tools for looking into the
future at relevant scales, and existing thinking and practice is not fulfilling the demand.
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Balance of foresight practitioners, funders, agri-food stakeholders.
Role of F4F:
Either as a central fully-funded secretariat supported by an international coordinating group, or a
central coordinating body commissioning research and event organization from external partners.
Resource Need:
A 4 person secretariat, or as an alternative, an external group commissioned to identify gaps.
Process and Activities:
1. Collation and meta-analysis of initiatives to identify existing and emerging issues
2. Prioritisation of activities
32
3. Organize and run a core event in 2020 intended to present meta-analysis
Implications (organization and governance):
The Initiative’s organization and governance will be heavily dependent on resources and credibility
of associated partners.
4.3.6 Theme 6: Capacity development for enhanced foresight
Purpose:
Developing the capacity to communicate, use foresight results, train, and create and facilitate
foresight exercises.
Needs:
Access to data and information
Ability to merge formal foresight exercises
Organizational skills
Foresight for the initiative’s activities
Justification:
Capacity is needed to ensure that key stakeholders within the food systems know how to
understand, use, communicate, and run their own foresight exercises given their specific purposes.
Collaborations and Partnerships:
Engage with traditional food and agriculture stakeholders, sociologists, business actors, civil society,
policy makers, and usually marginalized groups (i.e. youth) in food systems.
Role of F4F:
As a broker to supply the needed capacity, either through outsourcing the training needs, or working
through a model similar to RUFORUM.
Resource Need:
At the very least, 2 people, 3 workshops, 1 report, and 1 website, about 250,000 USD/year over 5
years for the common framework.
Process and Activities:
1. Curriculum development (graduate courses, professional short courses, CPD, etc.)
2. Creating and disseminating manuals or guides to foresight processes
3. Training courses and workshops on specific capacity issues, e.g. foresight models,
communication, etc.
4. Advocacy activities to embed and influence foresight in policy and practice
5. Developing and maintaining an online platform with experts
33
Implications (organization and governance):
Foresight4Food would need to create accountability, legitimacy, and credibility system for the
training and capacity building exercises, e.g. by associating itself with existing networks such as CFS.
The primary function will be to facilitate and support a foresight framework.
4.4 Closing Comments from Patrick Caron
Patrick Caron closed the proceedings with reflections on the workshop process and future directions for the Initiative. The need for designing narratives around food system transformations that will be able to address the 2030 Agenda, engaging with the foresight community to contribute to global dialogue and action, and anchoring food systems foresight in existing, legitimate areas of dialogue and policy was re-iterated. From the Oxford workshop in 2017, the engagement at Montpellier has resulted in clarity of need and direction for the Initiative, with the active engagement of knowledge institutions, donor and development agencies, private sector, regional organizations and civil society. The session ended with thanks for the organizers, MUSE, Agropolis International, the funding partners, and an entreaty to ‘enjoy, be creative, thoughtful, deliver, and decide’.
Figure 21 Group photo with participants
34
5 Appendix A: Workshop Programme
Foresight4Food International Workshop
22-24 May, 2018
Day 1: Tuesday 22/05/2018
Venue: Old Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier
09:30 – 10:00 Welcome Coffee (Salle Dugès)
10:00 – 10:30 Welcome and Introductions (Salle Macabies)
Speakers:
Saher Hasnain (Environmental Change Institute)
Patrick Caron (MUSE)
10:30 – 12:00 Foresight methodology seminar and master class (Salle Macabies)
Facilitator: Jim Woodhill (Environmental Change Institute)
Panel:
Robin Bourgeois (CIRAD)
Xiaoting Hou Jones (IIED)
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet (CIRAD)
Petr Havlik (IIASA)
Fabrice deClerck (EAT
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (Salle Dugès)
13:30 – 15:30 Sharing and discussion of current foresight work from (Salle Macabies)
Chair: Melissa Wood
Speakers:
Keith Wiebe (IFPRI)
Fabrice deClerck (EAT)
Petr Havlik (IIASA)
Avinash Kishore (IFPRI)
Bunmi Ajilore (GFAR)
15:30– 16:00 Break (Salle Dugès)
16:00 -18:00 Sharing and discussion of current foresight work from (con’t) (Salle
Macabies)
Chair: Santiago Alba (IDRC)
Speakers:
Cynthia Rosenzweig (AgMIP)
Zenia Tata (X Prize)
Joost Vervoort (CCAFS)
Rachid Serraj (ISPC)
Lorenzo Bellu (FAO)
Sean deCleene (WEF)
Paula Chalinder (DFID)
Patrick Herlant (EC)
Saher Hasnain (ECI)
Emile Frison (IPES)
18:00 Guided visit of Montpellier Historical Botanical Garden
19:00 Welcome reception (Cour d’honneur of the Old Faculty of Medicine)
35
Day 2: Wednesday 23/05/2018
Venue: Old Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier
08:30 – 09:00 Formal welcome and introduction to Foresight4Food Initiative (Salle des
Actes)
Speakers:
Patrick Caron (MUSE) Jim Woodhill (ECI)
Melissa Wood (ACIAR) Mark Holderness
(GFAR)
09:00 – 10:00 Scene-setting: emerging systemic risks and transformational opportunities
in food systems - the need for food systems foresight (plenary
presentations and discussion) (Salle des Actes)
Chair: Lise Korsten (UoP)
Speakers:
David Nabarro (UN) Irene Annor-
Fremong (FARA)
Marco Sanchez-Cantillo (FAO) Carin Smaller (IISD)
10:30 – 11:00 Break (Salle Dugès)
11:00 – 13:00 Tracking change in food systems: key dimensions and critical trends and
uncertainties that will shape the future (group work) (Salle Macabies & Salle
Bonaventure)
Facilitator: Jim Woodhill
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch (Salle Dugès)
14:00 – 14:45 User needs: shaping food systems foresight for policy, business, civil
society, think tanks and international collaboration (presentations and
group discussion) (Salle Macabies & Salle Bonaventure)
Chair: Ammad Bahalim
Speakers:
Sean deCleene (WEF)
Achmad Suryana (ICASEPS)
Kimberly Pfeifer (Oxfam(
Emile Frison (Bioversity)
Paula Chalinder (DFID)
14:45 – 15:15 What can be learned from past foresight processes: outlining the
proposition for taking Foresigh4Food forward (Salle des Actes)
Speakers:
Sebastien Treyer (IDDRI)
Tim Benton (UoL)
15:15 – 15:45 Break (Salle Dugès)
15:45 – 17:15 Developing the Initiative – working groups (Salle des Actes)
17:15 - 17:30 Concluding Observations (Salle des Actes)
Speaker: Andrew Campbell (ACIAR)
18:30 Transport by bus to Château Puech-Haut
19:00 – 21:00 Conference dinner and informal networking (Château Puech-Haut)
21:00 Transport by bus to the Old Faculty of Medicine
36
Day 3: Thursday 24/05/18
Venue: Agropolis International
08:30 Transport by bus to Agropolis International
9:00 – 9:10 Welcome to Agropolis Speaker: Bernard Hubert
9:10 – 10:15 Sharing reflections on the Foresight4Food Proposition and five key
areas (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)
Chair: Tim Benton
10:15 – 11:15 Detailed development of Foresight4Food Working Areas – Session One
(group work) (Salle Badiane)
Facilitator: Jim Woodhill & Monika Zurek
11:15 – 11:30 Working Coffee (Mezzanine)
11:30 – 12:30 Detailed development of Foresight4Food Working Areas – Session Two
(Salle Badiane)
Facilitator: Jim Woodhill & Monika Zurek
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (Salle Vanille)
13:30 – 14:30 Sharing, discussing and agreeing on priority actions (plenary) (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)
14:30 – 15:00 Final discussions and reactions - Mobilising the Foresight4Food
Initiative (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)
Speakers:
Mark Holderness (GFAR)
Patrick Caron (MUSE)
15:00 – 15:30 Coffee and final networking / goodbyes (Mezzanine)
16:00 Transport by bus to the Old Faculty of Medicine
37
6 Appendix B: Participant List Org Title Full Name Position
Agropolis Int
Dr Bernard Hubert President
IDRC Dr Santiago Alba Associate Director Food Security
FARA Dr Irene Annor-Frempong Director, Research and Extension
EC Mr Thomas Arnold Advisor for the Sustainable Bioeconomy
FAO Dr Lorenzo Bellu Team Leader
UoL Prof Tim Benton University of Leeds
CIRAD Dr Robin Bourgeois Senior Researcher
DFID Prof Martin Broadley Senior Research Fellow
NEPAD Dr Martin Bwalya Head of the Comprehensive Africa Development Programme
ACIAR Prof Andrew Campbell CEO
FAO Mr Marco Sánchez Cantillo Deputy-Director, Agricultural Development Economics (ESA)
CIRAD Dr Patrick Caron Director General in charge of Research and Strategy
DFID Ms Paula Chalinder Head of Profession, Livelihoods
ACIAR Dr Kuhu Chatterjee Regional Manager for South Asia
CIRAD Dr Marie de Lattre-Gasquet Senior Foresight Scientist
WEForum Mr Sean deCleene Head of Food System Initiative
EAT Dr Fabrice DeClerck Director of Science
IPES Mr Emile Frison Panel Member
UoL Dr Marcelo Galdos Academic Fellow - Modelling Food Security and Climate
CGIAR Dr Peter Gardiner Senior Manager Program Performance
WUR Mr Joost Guijt Senior Advisor
ECI Dr Saher Hasnain Researcher
IIASA Dr Petr Havlik Senior Research Scholar
USAID Mr. David Hegwood Senior Food Security Advisor
EC Mr. Patrick Herlant Policy Officer
SUAS Prof Ylva Hillbur Pro-vice Chancellor
GFAR Mr Mark Holderness Executive Secretary
ECI Dr John Ingram Food Systems Programme Leader
IIED Ms Xiaoting Hou Jones Researcher
EMBRAPA Mr Pedro Luiz Oliveira de Almeida Machado
Coordinator
Danone Ms Agnes Martin Health and Diet Advocacy Director
SUAS Dr Martin Melin Researcher: NEXTFOOD
CIFOR/FTA
Mr Alexandre Meybeck Senior Technical Advisor
38
WUR Dr Saeed Moghayer Senior Researcher/MAGNET Modeller
INRA Dr Olivier Mora ex-Director of Agricmonde-Terra
IIASA Dr Aline Mosnier Research Fellow
CCAFS Dr Maliha Muzammil South Asia Regional Scenarios Coordinator
AgMIP Dr Carolyn Mutter International Program Manager, AgMIP
UN Dr David Nabarro UN Special Adviser on 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Independent
Prof Zenda Ofir scientist + international evaluator
RUFORUM
Mr Charles Owuor Manager for Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
YPARD Ms Myriam Perez Director
OXFAM Dr Kimberly Pfeifer Food Systems Specialist
UoC Dr John Roy Porter Professor Emeritus
IDS Mr Evert-Jan Quak Research Coordinator
IDDRI Dr Marie Hélène Schwoob Research Fellow
CGIAR Dr Rachid Serraj Senior Agricultural Research Officer
ICASEPS Prof Achmad Suryana Senior Researcher
XPRIZE Ms Zenia Tata Vice-President: Global Impact Strategy
CC Ms Vanessa Taylor Assistant Director
IDDRI Dr Sebastien Treyer Director
SCAR Dr Ezigio Valceschini Member of SCAR
UU Dr Joost Vervoort Assisant Professor
ACIAR Dr Daniel Walker Chief Scientist
IFPRI Dr Keith Wiebe Senior Research Fellow
OSF Ms Elizabeth Wilson Programme officer
ACIAR Ms Mellissa Wood Director Australian International Food Security Centre
ECI Dr Jim Woodhill Honorary Research Associate
AUB Prof Rami Zurayk Member of HLPE Steering Committee
ECI Dr Monika Zurek Senior Researcher