been mixed in Africa, even though there may be considerable scientific opportu-
nities for using biotechnology in crop breeding programmes to increase resistance
to biotic and abiotic stress and to improve nutrient content and nitrogen use
efficiency (NASAC 2021).

7 Strengthening the Contribution of Research to Policymaking

Alongside action to accelerate investment in agriculture and food systems research (von Braun et al. 2020), there must be transdisciplinary integration of priorities at the science-policy interface across all relevant sectors (Fears et al. 2019), including agriculture, the environment, health and social care, rural and urban development, and fiscal policy. There must also be linkage of policy at the local, regional and global levels (Fears et al. 2020), while taking account of local values and circumstances and recognising the challenges for coordination. One recent example from Asia (Islam and Kieu 2020) of developing critical mass in regional policy for climate change and food security discusses criteria for successive steps in policy planning, implementation, cooperation and legal obligation, and observes that the latter two steps often present fundamental barriers to moving from the priorities in a national development agenda to regional coherence. In the African region, the recent Joint Ministerial Declaration and Action Agenda (AU 2020) calls upon governments to build greater productive capacity in agriculture and strengthen resilience throughout Africa's agri-food systems.

Scaling efforts for critical mass requires individual countries to recognise that their policy decisions may have an impact on other countries and regions. For example, some countries export their lack of environmental sustainability by increasing food imports from elsewhere (IAP 2018).

Academies and others within the scientific community (STCMG 2020) have a
key role in overcoming obstacles to effective policy by working together across
disciplines to show the value of an inclusive approach, e.g., to the SDGs. Moreover,
systematic review of the literature indicates that public support for a policy can be
increased by communicating evidence of its effectiveness (Reynolds et al. 2020;
Fears et al. 2020). Therefore, the work of academies in using the evidence base to
inform policy development and implementation can help to provide the bridge
between policymakers and the public.

What are the implications for the UN FSS? UN FSS discussions have highlighted
the place of “game-changers” in driving transformative action, and the scientific
community has much to contribute in exploring the potential of game-changers to
underpin transformation at the science-policy interface (see AASSA 2021). For
<table><caption>**Table 2** The scientific community has a continuing role in assessing and implementing game-changers to strengthen the contribution of research to policymaking</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Game-changers in Action Track 1</td><td>How are academies helping to inform policy options? Examples from the regional chapters</td></tr><tr><td>Changing the fundamental incentives that created the present situation</td><td>Identifying research priorities for providing diversified, sustainable, healthy diets and pricing in negative externalities; developing better connections between data sets across health, environment and economics.</td></tr><tr><td>Taking advantage of shifts in underlying conditions</td><td>Clarifying the consequences of Covid-19 in improving system resilience and a sustainable, equitable, healthy recovery.</td></tr><tr><td>Recognising the value of multiple organisations working on related themes</td><td>Convening and catalytic roles to help reduce barriers between countries, sectors, and disciplines, and encourage shared perspectives.</td></tr><tr><td>Avoiding neglect of the obvious</td><td>Reaffirming the importance of current strategies for tackling all malnutrition, including fundamental science and food science and technology in support of innovation; paying more attention to understanding the value of indigenous crops (and improving their domestication) and traditional diets (e.g., in Africa, Mabhaudi et al. 2019).</td></tr><tr><td>Changing mind sets so as to think in terms of systems</td><td>A food systems approach has been central to the academies' work in providing evidence to policymakers and other stakeholders, and in involving those whose voices have sometimes been muted.</td></tr></tbody></table>

example, a recent commentary on Action Track 1⁶ identified some key precepts that can be illustrated by academies' work at the regional and global levels (Table 2).

We suggest that there is an additional game-changer, applicable to all Action Tracks: the development of a new international science advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition Security (IAP 2018), with a broad remit for food systems, focused on shaping policy choices and strengthening governance mechanisms. A new Panel, recognising the new opportunities and challenges for food system governance, could help to streamline research efficiency in its linkage to policy action and increase the legitimacy of that science advice by using robust assessment procedures (Global Panel 2020). The impetus created by the UN FSS requires the coordination and management of food systems by more sectors of government and stakeholders than had been the case for food security, creating an unprecedented opportunity to develop a framework for greater transparency, accountability and the sharing of knowledge. By consolidating the present myriad, fragmented, array of panels and advisory committees, the proposed international advisory Panel could draw on the large scientific community already working on these topics – including academies – and should be asked to address the most pressing issues for transformative change in the face of the mounting global challenges. Food and nutrition security, particularly

<footnote n="6">⁶Haddad, L. 2021 "Food systems "game changers": reflections so far", on https://un-food-systems. medium.com/food-systems-game-changers-reflections-so-far-d4c8200c5663</footnote>
for high-risk groups, must be a top priority on every country's national agenda, yet many countries do not have a national security strategy in place (EIU 2020). Furthermore, as already noted, advisory capacities, governance policies, and institutions are sometimes weak at the regional level (AASSA 2021; NASAC 2021). Thus, in addition to building the critical mass for evaluating complex issues at the global scale, an international advisory Panel could help to drive momentum for a national food system strategy in all countries and engender regional-level initiatives in policy development and implementation.

IAP recommends that the UN FSS now consider options for constituting a new international advisory Panel, so as to make best use of the rapid advances in science, technology and innovation, and to motivate evidence-based policymaking at all levels. IAP and its regional academy networks are eager to be involved.

# 8 Conclusions

* Achieving food and nutrition security worldwide by transforming food systems remains a major challenge, compounded by recent pressures from climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. Actions to promote food systems are relevant to multiple SDGs. It is essential to identify opportunities for synergies and trade-offs while avoiding inadvertent negative consequences, and to engage everybody, in order to enable change. This requires advances in complex food system modelling.

* Food systems are diverse and heterogeneous. Continuing research is needed to inform diverse yet equitable solutions for sustainable, healthy diets that are culturally sensitive, focusing on vulnerable groups. That calls for stronger connections between local and international research entities. The opportunities for complex and innovative remote sensing and web-based data should also be explored for this purpose.

* Greater transdisciplinarity is needed in research to progress from the current scientific agenda, which is still too often focused on individual components of food systems or on agriculture separate from its environmental context. Social science research must be better integrated with other disciplines, e.g., to understand and inform consumer, farmer and manufacturer behaviours and to guide policies to deliver objectives for social justice. The development of improved methodologies for understanding the attribution of impact is also a critical research priority.

* Science is a public good, yet the conduct and use of basic and other research is often fragmented. There is still much to be done to build critical mass worldwide, to share skills and a research infrastructure, and to collaborate in agreeing upon and addressing research priorities and avoiding unnecessary duplication. There is a continued convening role for academies of science to facilitate the exploration of opportunities and tackle the obstacles to research collaboration between disciplines and between the public and private research communities.
* There are also opportunities to improve science-policy interfaces and integrate policy development at the local, regional and global levels. One game-changer would be to constitute an international advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition Security with new emphasis on food systems to make better use of the best science to inform, motivate and implement evidence-based policymaking at all levels.

**Acknowledgements** This IAP Brief was drafted by Robin Fears and Claudia Canales in discussion with Volker ter Meulen. We thank Sheryl Hendriks (NASAC), Elizabeth Hodson (IANAS) and Paul Moughan (AASSA) for their helpful advice.

## References

AASSA (2021) Regional brief for UN FSSS

Adesogan AT, Havelaar AH, McKune SL, Eilitta M, Dahl GE (2019) Animal source foods: sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob Food Secur 25:100325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325

Ali Z, Green R, Zougmore RB et al (2020) Long-term impact of West African food system responses to COVID-19. Nat Food 1:768–770

Andrews O, Le Quere C, Kjellstrom T, Lemke B, Haines A (2018) Implications for workability and survivability in populations exposed to extreme heat under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health 2:e540–e547

Anon. (2021) Climate and COVID-19 converging crises. Lancet 397:71

Aryal JP, Sapkota TB, Khurana R, Khatri-Chhetri A, Rahut DB, Jat ML (2020) Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environ Dev Sustain 22:504505075

AU (African Union) (2020) Joint virtual meeting of the African Ministers responsible for agriculture, trade and finance on the impact of COVID-19 on food and nutrition security in Africa, 27 July 2020. Joint Ministerial Declaration and Action Agenda. AU, Addis Ababa

Basso B, Antle J (2020) Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat Sustain 3: 254–256

Baumüller K, Admassie A, Hendriks S, Tadesse G, von Braun J (eds) (2021) From potentials to reality: transforming Africa's food production – investment and policy priorities for sufficient, nutritious and sustainable food supplies. Peter Lang Publ. (Forthcoming, an earlier draft is available at https://www.zef.de/fileadmin/downloads/ZEF_Akademiya2063.pdf)

Benton TG, Bailey R (2019) The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Glob Sustain 2:e6

Brown ME, Backer D, Billing T et al (2020) Empirical studies of factors associated with child malnutrition: highlighting the evidence about climate and conflict shocks. Food Secur. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01041-y

Chan C, Tran N, Pethiyagoda S, Crissman C, Sulser T, Phillips M (2019) Prospects and challenges of fish for food security in Africa. Glob Food Sec 20:17–25

Chatham House (2021) Food system impacts on biodiversity. ISBN: 978 1 78413 433 4

Coomes OT, Barham BL, MacDonald GK, Ramankutty N, Chavas J-P (2019) Leveraging total factor productivity growth for sustainable and resilient farming. Nat Sustain 2:22–28

Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S et al (2020) The future of food from the sea. Nature 588:95–100

Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS et al (2019) Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat Sustain 2:130–137
Cuevas RP, de Guia A, Demont M (2017) Developing a framework of gastronomic systems research to unravel drivers of food choice. Int J Gastron Food Sci 9:86-99

Cui Z, Zhang H, Chen X et al (2018) Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555:363-366

Dayamba DS, Ky-Dembele C, Bayala J et al (2018) Assessment of the use of Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) approach by farmers to manage climate risk in Mali and Senegal. Clim Serv 12:27-35

EASAC (2021) Regional brief for UN FSSS

Economist Intelligence Unit (2020) 2020 Global food security index. https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/index

Eker S, Reese G, Obersteiner M (2019) Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift to sustainable diets. Nat Sustain 2:725-735

Fanzo J, Covic N, Dobermann A et al (2020) A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. Glob Food Sec 26:100397

FAO (2019) Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators. FAO

FAO (2020) State of food security and nutrition in the world. FAO

Fears R, ter Meulen V, von Braun J (2019) Global food and nutrition security needs more and new science. Sci Adv 5:eaba2946

Fears R, Canales Holzeis C, ter Meulen V (2020) Designing inter-regional engagement to inform cohesive policy making. Palgrave Commun 6:107

Food systems Dashboard (2020) A food systems framework. https://foodsystemsdashboard.org/about-food-system

Fore HH, Dongyu O, Beasley DM, Ghebreyesus TA (2020) Child malnutrition and COVID-19: the time to act is now. Lancet 396:517-518

Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Krey V et al (2019) A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation. Nat Sustain 2:386-396

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food systems for Nutrition (2020) Future food systems: for people, our planet, and prosperity. Foresight 2.0

High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. Committee on World Food Security

Hodson De Jaramillo E, Henry G, Trigo E (2019) La Bioeconomía. Nuevo marco para el crecimiento sostenible en América Latina/Bioeconomy. New Framework for Sustainable Growth in Latin America. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. ISBN 978-958-781-378-4. Available at https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/43705

Hong C, Burney JA, Pongratz J et al (2021) Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961-2017. Nature 589:554-561

IANAS (2017) Challenges and opportunities for food and nutrition security in the Americas. The view of the academies of sciences

IANAS (2021). Regional brief for UN FSS

IAP (2018) Opportunities for future research and innovation on food and nutrition security and agriculture. The InterAcademy Partnership's global perspective

IFPRI (2020) Building inclusive food systems. Global Food Policy Report

IPCC (2019) Climate change and land. In: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems

Islam MS, Kieu E (2020) Tackling regional climate change impacts and food security issues: a critical analysis across ASEAN, PIF, and SAARC. Sustainability 12:883

Izaguirre C, Losada IJ, Camus P, Vigh JL, Stenek V (2021) Climate change risk to global port operations. Nat Clim Chang 11:14-20

Jain M, Singh B, Rao P et al (2019) The impact of agricultural interventions can be doubled by using satellite data. Nat Sustain 2:931-934
Janssens C, Havlik P, Krisztin T et al (2020) Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nat Clim Chang 10:829–835

Jarmul S, Dangour AD, Green R et al (2020) Climate change mitigation through dietary change: a systematic review of empirical and modelling studies on the environmental footprints and health effects of “sustainable diets”. Environ Res Lett 15:123014

Kongerslev TT, Bertram HC, Bonjour J-P et al (2017) Whole dairy matrix or single nutrients in an assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gaps. Am J Clin Nutr 105:1033–1045

Laar A, Barnes A, Aryeetey R et al (2020) Implementation of healthy food environment policies to prevent nutrition-related non-communicable diseases in Ghana: national experts’ assessment of government action. Food Policy 93:101907

Lillford P, Hermansson A-M (2020) Global missions and the critical needs of food science and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.009

Lubchenco J, Haugan P, Pangestu ME (2020) Five priorities for a sustainable ocean economy. Nature 588:30–32

Mabhaudhi T, Vimbayi V, Chimonyo G et al (2019) Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta 250:695–708

Mehrabli Z, McDowell MJ, Ricciardi V et al (2021) The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat Sustain 4:154–160

NASAC (2021) Regional brief for UN FSS

Neufeld LM, Hendriks S, Hugas M (2021) Healthy diet: a definition for the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021. Scientific Group Report. https://sc-fss2021.org

Niles MT, Emery BF, Wiltshire S et al (2021) Climate impacts associated with reduced diet diversity in children across nineteen countries. Environ Res Lett 16:015010

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2019) Meat alternatives. Bioethics Briefing Note

Oliva R, Ji C, Atienza-Grande G et al (2019) Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 37:1344–1350

Park CS, Vogel E, Larson LM et al (2019) The global effect of extreme weather events on nutrient supply: a superposed epoch analysis. Lancet Planet Health 3:e429–e438

Pironen S, Etherington TR, Borrell JS et al (2019) Potential adaptive strategies for 29 sub-Saharan crops under future climate change. Nat Clim Chang 9:758–763

Ray DK, West PC, Clark M et al (2019) Climate change has likely already affected global food production. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217148

Reynolds JP, Stautz K, Pilling M et al (2020) Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: a systematic review with meta-analysis. R Soc Open Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190522

Rosenstock TS, Dawson IK, Aynekulu E et al (2019) A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 1:330–344

Savary S, Akter S, Almekinders C et al (2020) Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems. Food Secur 12:695–717

Scientific and Technological Community Major Group (2020) Position paper on the theme of the 2020 High-Level Political Forum. https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ Position-Paper-STC-29_June.pdf

Singh NP, Arathy A, Pavithra S et al (2017) Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning, Policy Paper 32. ICAR – National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi

Singh BK, Trivedi P, Egidi E et al (2020) Crop microbiome and sustainable agriculture. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:601–602

Smith J, Andersson G, Gourlay R et al (2016) Balancing competing policy demands: the case of sustainable public sector food procurement. J Clean Prod 112:249–256

Swinnen J, McDermott J (eds) (2020) COVID-19 and global food security. IFPRI

Thorrez L, Vandenburg H (2019) Challenges in the quest for “clean meat”. Nat Biotechnol 37: 215–216
Tongwane MI, Moeletsi ME (2018) A review of greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector in Africa. Agric Syst 166:124–134

van Loon MP, Hijbeek R, ten Berge HFM et al (2019) Impacts of intensifying or expanding cereal cropping in sub-Saharan Africa on greenhouse gas emissions and food security. Glob Chang Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14783

von Braun J, Chichaibelu BB, Torero CM, Laborde D, Smaller C (2020) Ending hunger by 2030 – policy actions and costs. ZEF Policy Brief

von Braun J, Afsano K, Fresco L, Hassan M, Torero M (2021) Food systems – definition, concept and application for the UN Food Systems Summit. Scientific Group Report. https://sc-fss2021.org

Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N et al (2021) The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Lancet 397:129–170

Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B et al (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492

WMO (2019) 2019 State of climate services. Report WMO-No. 1242

Yuan J, Xiang J, Liu D et al (2019) Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture. Nat Clim Chang 9:318–322

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>
# The Bioeconomy and Food System Transformation

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Eduardo Trigo, Hugo Chavarria, Carl Pray, Stuart J. Smyth,
Agustin Torroba, Justus Wesseler, David Zilberman, and Juan F. Martinez

## 1 Bioeconomy Concepts and Contributions

The most widely and well-recognized definition of bioeconomy was proposed in the framework of the Global Bioeconomy Summit, which was held in 2018, whereby the: "bioeconomy is the production, utilization and conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to provide information, products, processes and services across all economic sectors aiming toward a sustainable economy" (IACGBS 2018). The bioeconomy, as a policy framework and developmental approach, makes use of material and energy found in biodiversity, biomass and genetic resources, which contributes to sustainability initiatives and climate change mitigation targets. Additionally, the knowledge that is generated about biological principles and processes can be replicated in the design of new products (IACGB 2020).

E. Trigo (✉) · H. Chavarria · A. Torroba · J. F. Martinez
Bioeconomy and Productive Development Program, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), San José, Costa Rica
e-mail: ejtrigo@gmail.com

C. Pray
School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ, USA

S. J. Smyth
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada

J. Wesseler
Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, the Netherlands

D. Zilberman
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA
The concept of bioeconomy as a development approach arises from the context of the current era, driven by the advance of science and technology (S&T) and the need to address new problems and concerns (Patermann and Aguilar 2018). In recent decades, this definition has been boosted not only by the progress in research and developments in the field of biological sciences, but also by its complementarity and convergence with the S&T of materials (especially nanotechnology) and information (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI), digitization, information and communication technologies (ICT), and the Internet of Things (IoT)) (Krüger et al. 2020; Torres-Giner et al. 2020; van Dijk et al. 2021). The emergence of the bioeconomy has also been favored by concerns associated with climate change, since material replacement and the energy base of production processes are essential components of the actions needed to mitigate its impact. This new paradigm is proposed as an important complement to the fossil decarbonization of the economy (Lewandowski 2018). Moreover, interest in the bioeconomy also emerges out of societies' concerns around meeting the increased demand for food through agriculture that more sustainably uses natural resources and reduces the potential for negative environmental impacts (Wesseler and von Braun 2017).

In addition to the above, consumers are moving towards increasingly sustainable lifestyles and are inclined to buy environmentally-friendly products (Sandra and Alessandro 2021). These new demands are an opportunity for the utilization of biomass (agricultural residual and food waste) not only to help reduce pollution, but also as an alternative feedstock for the production of a wide range of materials, from fuels and energy to chemicals, bioplastics and pharmaceuticals, among others (Usmani et al. 2021). Furthermore, future bioeconomic innovations are expected to generate greater positive impacts on sustainability (Biber-Freudenberger et al. 2020), like synthetic biology, novel nitrogen-fixing crops, nanofertilizers, etc. (Herrero et al. 2020a).

The bioeconomy has similarities and differences with concepts of the circular economy and the green economy, which are also currently being discussed as approaches to sustainable development (D'Amato et al. 2017; Kardung et al. 2020). All of them are multi-dimensional concepts that have as goals: the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; the efficient use of energy and material; responsible consumption; and social inclusion through innovation (D'Amato et al. 2019). However, what distinguishes the bioeconomy is its focus on the transformation of the structure of production, because the basis for this is that material and energy are biological resources, as well as the use of knowledge for processing and the creation of value-added chains (Fig. 1).

The bioeconomy makes important contributions to sustainable economic growth from the environmental and social points of view, especially in rural areas (Refsgaard et al. 2021). For example, the European Union (EU) bioeconomy (post-Brexit composition) employed around 17.5 million people and generated €614 billion of added value in 2017 (Ronzon et al. 2020). In that same year, in Latin American countries such as Argentina, the bioeconomy generated 2.47 million direct jobs (Coremberg 2019). Similarly, Nordic countries have experienced bioeconomy-related employment growth of 5–15%, especially in Iceland, Denmark
<figure><img src="image_177.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Sectors and networks of the bioeconomy. (Source: Adapted from the Andalusian Bioeconomy Strategy 2018)</figcaption></figure>

and Sweden (Refsgaard et al. 2021). It is estimated that the bioeconomic development model will have an economic potential of US$7.7 trillion between now and 2030 (WBCSD 2020). Additionally, in 2017, countries such as Italy expected to increase employment by 15% through its bioeconomic strategy (Italian Government 2019). Meanwhile, Colombia plans the generation of 2.5 million new jobs in its bioeconomic sectors (Colombian Government 2020). Previous projections are supported by trends in the bioeconomy markets. While commodities such as vegetable oil, sugar and cereals have a growth rate of less than 4.45%, sectors with higher added value such as biofuels, bioplastics and biofertilizers grew by 25%, 20% and 14%, respectively (Betancur et al. 2018). Using new S&T to add value to biological resources leads to more profitable and sustainable markets.

Finally, links between the bioeconomy and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development have been demonstrated by using the indicators of the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for monitoring and evaluating the bioeconomy (Calicioglu and Bogdanski 2021). In an analysis of national bioeconomic strategies carried out by Linser and Lier (2020), it was found that topics related to the SDGs were indirectly related to objectives, planned actions and proposed measurements for policy instruments aimed at promoting the bioeconomy. Fourteen relevant SDGs for the bioeconomy were identified. For example, the bio-based economy can play a fundamental role in the decarbonization of the planet (SDG 13: Climate Action) and the production of agricultural bio-inputs, healthy food and the sustainable intensification of agricultural production (SDG 2: Zero Hunger, SDG No. 3: Good Health and Well-being and SDG No. 15: Life on Land). In addition, the closure of production cycles through the use of residual biomass improves the sustainable production indicators (SDG No. 12: Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG No. 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities). Another important contribution of this new paradigm is the design of biomaterials and production of different types of bioenergy (SDG No. 9: Industry, Innovation and
<table><caption>**Table 1** Potential contributions of the bioeconomy to the SDGs</caption><thead><tr><td>Potential Contribution</td><td>SDGs that contribute</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Productive models that take advantage of science and technology to use biological resources sustainably and efficiently to make substitutes for petrochemicals (for example, bioenergy, biofertilizers, or bioplastics) or to satisfy new consumer demands (for example, functional foods or biocosmetics).</td><td>SDG 2: Sustainable Food Production<br>SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being<br>SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy<br>SDG 9: Industry and Innovation<br>SDG 13: Climate Action</td></tr><tr><td>Use of productive practices that contribute to environmental sustainability and resilience while adding productivity and efficiency.</td><td>SDG 13: Climate Action<br>SDG 15: Life on Land</td></tr><tr><td>Circular economy production systems, through the productive use of waste biomass derived from production and consumption processes.</td><td>SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities<br>SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production</td></tr><tr><td>Development of products, processes, and systems replicating processes and systems observed in nature.</td><td>SDG 9: Industry and Innovation<br>SDG 14: Sustainable Use of Underwater Biodiversity<br>SDG 15: Sustainable Use of Land Biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>Bioremediation to face environmental contamination problems (for example, recovery of degraded or contaminated soils, and treatment of water for human consumption and wastewater).</td><td>SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation<br>SDG 15: Prevention of Soil Degradation</td></tr><tr><td>Increase in the economic density of rural territories from new industrialization processes and local use of biomass for the generation of bioproducts and bio services.</td><td>SDG 8: New Sources of Decent Work and Sustainable of Economic Growth</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Chavarría et al. (2020)

Infrastructure and SDG No. 7: Affordable and Clean Energy), which help generate new jobs (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth).

The approach and application of the bioeconomy as a development model, contributing towards the achievement of the SDGs related to food security and nutrition, health and well-being, and clean water and sanitation, among others, is presented and analyzed in Table 1.

## 2 Bioeconomic Contributions to Food System Transformation

The transformation towards more sustainable and equitable food systems seeks to provide healthy and nutritious food for all, while creating livelihood opportunities and reducing negative impacts (von Braun et al. 2020). To achieve this goal, the UN Food Systems Summit has established five Action tracks, which are related to the bioeconomy as follows: **Action Track 1** seeks to ensure the availability of safe and nutritious food for everyone. This will require increasing crop and livestock yields through sustainable intensification activities in multifunctional landscapes, the diversification of production and good soil management (Hendriks et al. 2020). Another
engine for the transformation of food systems is the shift to healthy and sustainable
consumption patterns (**Action Track 2**). In this case, the bioeconomy can strengthen
local value chains, promoting the reuse and recycling of food resources (Herrero
et al. 2020b). **Action Track 3** aims to optimize the use of natural resources in food
production, processing and distribution as pollution, soil degradation and loss of
biodiversity are reduced. For this, the bioeconomy proposes strategies focused on
value chains with integrated cycles, which increase efficiency and recycling through
products and co-products in different biological systems (Hodson et al. 2020). These
strategies for integrating chains and adding value to products at the local level
contribute to poverty reduction through the creation of new rural jobs (**Action
Track 4**) (Neufeld et al. 2020). Finally, **Action Track 5** seeks to promote resilience
in the face of vulnerabilities, impacts and stresses in food systems (Hertel et al.
2020). Resilience can be strengthened by a growing bioeconomy based on the
diversification of agricultural commodity production, the increased use of bio-based
inputs in agriculture and the diversification of rural incomes into rural production of
bioenergy, bio-based industry and environmental services. The current contingency
caused by COVID-19 and recent natural disasters highlights the importance of
innovations to prepare food systems for future pressures.

## 2.1 Advantages of Scientific and Technological Developments

Advances in the fields of biology, ICT and engineering are repositioning the role
played by biological resources and improving our ability to understand and take full
advantage of the opportunities they offer. In recent decades, advances in biology
have accelerated, with new research tools such as genome editing contributing new
knowledge of plant, animal and microbial genomes and big data. The increases in
knowledge are being used to enhance the efficiency of crops, animals, biofuel,
bioplastics and bioenergy production. The new tools have highlighted the full
potential of the intrinsic value of natural and biological processes (IACGB 2020).
The impact of these trends, which are transformative in themselves, is augmented by
the interaction among them, what is beginning to be referred to as ‘technological
convergence.’ By interacting with each other, different disciplines – biology, bio-
technology, chemistry, nanotechnology, data science, ICT, engineering, etc. – are
driving the progress of each specific field, blurring the traditional boundaries
between sectors of the economy and changing the competitive advantages of coun-
tries and their businesses (MIT 2005; Park 2017).

Information and communication technologies and digitalization are becoming
important determinants of the organization and competitiveness of economies.
Widespread connectivity, satellite technologies, data science and artificial intelli-
gence mechanisms, robotics, autonomous systems, electronic and biological sensors,
virtual and augmented reality, the IoT and blockchain applications are increasing the
efficiency of agriculture, food and biomass supply chains, which reduce waste and
resource use while increasing the quality of food and biomass. It is also becoming
increasingly possible to predict climate phenomena, foresee their consequences and generate risk management programs to better deal with the consequences and monitor climate impact, all of which will undoubtedly reduce farm management costs (Draca et al. 2018).

Through the use of such groundbreaking S&T, the bioeconomy makes it possible to improve the productivity and sustainability of biological resources by developing more productive, disease-resistant and environmentally-friendly varieties of plants and animals. S&T increases the productivity of biomass (including waste and residues), developing new bioproducts with high added value, such as nutraceuticals, bioenergy and other biological materials used by the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, chemical and other industries. Furthermore, it generates a range of new services and attaches greater value to biodiversity (Lokkoa et al. 2017; Malyska and Jacob 2018), for example, integrated pest management based on biological pesticides and fertilizers (Akutse et al. 2020).

Technological convergence is one of the trends making the biggest contribution to the renewed, modernized vision of agriculture and food systems, value-added chains and international trade. Convergence is especially important because of young people's technological skills – which far exceed those of previous generations – and the need to halt the migration of young people from rural territories to more urbanized areas. These new technological scenarios are already beginning to be reflected in agriculture, agribusiness and the rural regions, and are increasingly perceived as offering the basis for the development of ‘sustainable intensification.’ Furthermore, they are expected to have significant effects on the ways in which agricultural production is organized, improved rural employment opportunities and equity in rural territories.

Technological advances and convergence support SGDs: 3 (Good Health and Well-being); 8 (New Sources of Decent Work and Sustainable of Economic Growth); 9 (Industry and Innovation) 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production); and 15 (Sustainable Use of Land Biodiversity).

## 2.2 Transforming Rural Environments, Generating Income and Employment Opportunities

One of the key issues around the bioeconomy comes from the implications of moving from fossil- to bio-based value chains. Fossil raw materials are relatively homogeneous, are globally extracted in high volumes from only a few highly productive deposits of limited area, and come out almost completely ready to be transformed into products predominantly for the energy sector, but also for the multi-stage chemical sector and the construction sector, through large-scale industrial and logistical infrastructures. The defining attributes of the associated value chains are that they are global and large-scale. In contrast, biological carbon – biomass – comes
from a highly decentralized context because of the diverse nature of agriculture and
forestry and ‘does not travel well.’ Due to its large volumes, limited shelf-life and
low energy and carbon density, it is not economical to transport biomass long
distances before processing it, an issue that calls for biorefineries – integrated
biomass processing facilities – to also be organized in a decentralized way in
locations close to the areas producing the raw materials.

It is these characteristics of bio-based value chains that open up opportunities for significant transformations of the rural landscape and the way rural areas integrate into the economy. These bio-based value chains can significantly increase the economic ‘density’ of the territories. In the first place, bio-based value chains bring new activities – biorefineries and other industrial and logistical infrastructures – into the rural landscape, diversifying sources of income and the nature of employment opportunities. Greater economic density will generate greater opportunities for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) territories that have high unemployment, informal jobs (76% of those employed), poverty (45%; two to three times higher than urban rates) and exclusion. The use of biomass for new industries will increase economic opportunities for both the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, as the non-agricultural sector in LAC generates 58% of the income of rural territories (ILO 2020).

Bioeconomic value chains can address one of the common concerns in rural
communities around the world: out-migration to urban centers and aging populations
due to the lack of interest among young people to remain in farming vis-a-vis the
promise of a more ‘attractive’ future in non-agricultural jobs. There is no possibility
of success in achieving better livelihoods in the context of a decaying rural space.
According to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) study that included 24 developing countries around the world, only 45%
of rural youths are satisfied with their employment (OECD 2018). Among the
reasons for seeking a new job, rural youths mentioned: a better income (36.7%);
greater stability in contracts (20%); better working conditions (17%); and an increase
in skills (13%).

A second strategic component of the impact of bioeconomic developments on transforming rural environments is the implications of improved energy availability in terms of attracting other economic activities beyond the bio-based value chain activities proper. In this sense, there is considerable evidence that rural electrification stimulated local business development (Riva 2020), which suggests that bioenergy options could not only significantly lower the cost of energy through the decentralization of costly energy grids – a continuing hurdle for many rural areas, particularly in the poorer countries – but also improve environmental performance by using residual biomass and waste (Tamburini et al. 2020). This should be especially important for a region like LAC, where forest biomass is equivalent to half of its land area (and 25% of the world’s forests), and its agriculture represents 12% of world agricultural production and contributes to the 16% of the world export of agricultural products. Furthermore, it is a region where more than 120 million tons of food are wasted annually (55% of fruits and vegetables, 40% of roots and tubers, 25% of cereals, meats and dairy products) (ECLAC et al. 2019).
Energy – in affordable, stable supply – is a critical restriction to economic development, and the bioeconomy is increasingly offering it through options that are not competitive with food production (Gabashwediwe et al. 2019). Furthermore, in an increasingly interconnected world, the emerging bioeconomy networks (i.e., value adding, energy diversification) are a viable strategy for reversing the conditions that have been fueling rural out-migration, making the rural areas more competitive spaces for social and economic development (Hartley et al. 2019). In 2018, bioenergy generated 3.18 million jobs – equivalent to 30% of all jobs in the renewable energy sector. Moreover, the employment generated by the biofuels sector worldwide is highly concentrated in the western hemisphere. Latin America and the Caribbean accounts for 50% of liquid biofuel jobs worldwide, while North America accounts for 16%. Brazil leads among countries as the largest employer in biofuels, employing 832,000 persons (Torroba 2020a).

Improved rural economies through bioeconomy and bio-based energy contribute to supporting SDGs: 3 (Good Health and Well-being); 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); 8 (New Sources of Decent Work and Sustainable Economic Growth); 9 (Industry and Innovation); 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities); and 15 (Sustainable Use of Land Biodiversity).

## 2.3 Improving Food Chain Resource Use

The diversification and efficient use of biomass to produce biofuels contributes to GHG reduction, generates added value and employment, and can contribute to safer and more efficient agri-food systems. From the point of view of the economy of the industry, biomass utilization gives rise to various co-products, among which are a series of biomaterials of different added value. The energetic biomaterials are liquid, solid and gaseous biofuels, which, aggregated under the term ‘bioenergy,’ represent the production of 10% of the world’s primary energy supply (IEA 2019). In an associated way, a wide range of products linked to animal and human food (flour proteins, expeller, bagasse, distiller’s dried/wet grains with solubles, etc.) and other high value-added products linked to the pharmaceutical, alcohol chemical and oleo chemical industries are also produced.

In this way, the efficient and integral use of biomass gives rise to an industry categorized as ‘multi-product’ (Baumol et al. 1982), in which the production of co-products allows for diversification and complements the production of food, facilitating better distribution in the production costs of raw materials, which makes the system more efficient. In addition, a safer agri-food system is generated, since diversified uses make up a reserve or buffer of raw materials that can be used as food in case of a food crisis. Moreover, the production of biofuels has generated a more stable demand for raw materials (especially of those multi-annual crops), generating an additional sales channel that allows for expansion in the supply of raw materials involved in the process. According to Torroba (2020b), 16% of corn production worldwide, 20% of sugar, 19% of soybean oil and 16% of palm oil were
destined towards biofuels. When the prices of related commodities are not attractive, the redirection of raw material derived from crops, especially multi-annual ones, can be particularly beneficial to farmers. It generates more stable demand for raw materials. The more stable demand for raw materials, and the potential positive impact this has on prices, can benefit a neglected group in LAC: family farmers, of whom there are 60 million working in the sector.

The productivity of the bioeconomy sectors has significantly improved over time, reflecting learning-by-doing and ongoing technological updating. The processing costs of US corn ethanol declined by 45% between 1983 and 2010, while production volumes increased seventeen-fold; learning-by-doing and economies of scale played an important role in reducing these processing costs. Similarly, the cost of producing sugarcane ethanol in Brazil declined by 70% between 1975 and 2010 (Chen et al. 2015). With advances in biotechnology to enhance the productivity of feedstock crops, the efficiency of refining and the use of residue, the cost of biofuels and their environmental impacts will decline while the added value is enhanced (Debnath et al. 2019).

Finally, the use of biomass residues to produce alternative biofuels (e.g., biogas, advanced biofuels, etc.) lends a higher degree of efficiency to the system, allowing for the transformation of losses of raw materials or waste into energies of biological origin. The potential of residues originating from forestry, agriculture, and other sources is estimated to amount to 40–170 exajoule/year, with a mean estimate of around 100 exajoule/year by 2050 (IPCC 2012). For comparison purposes, annual energy consumption in the US amounts to 94 exajoules. The use of biomass could amount to a considerable percentage in the total generation of bioenergy, however, adoption of biomass as a source of bioenergy will vary widely, depending on supply availability and cost.

Enhancing the utilization of resources in supply chains supports SGDs: 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); 9 (Industry and Innovation); and 13 (Climate Action).

## 2.4 Improved Nutrition and Health

The growing interest of consumers in products with natural ingredients can promote new value chains associated with tropical biodiversity. Agroforestry systems with native fruit trees and traditional forest foods can provide the necessary macro- and micro-nutrients needed to improve nutrition and food security (Chamberlain et al. 2020). Simultaneously, food innovations have helped diversify diets, especially with new protein sources such as those based on micro-algae (Melgar-Lalanne et al. 2019; Ordoñez-Araque and Egas-Montenegro 2021) and insects. Micro-algae possess a high nutritional value, containing protein, polyunsaturated fatty acids, bioactive carbohydrates and antioxidants, including pigments such as carotenes and chlorophylls phycobiliproteins (Fernández et al. 2021). Moreover, other technologies under development, such as cultured meat products, promise to be a sustainable protein source (Post et al. 2020).
On the other hand, innovations in plant breeding technologies, such as those used to create genetically modified (GM) crops, have made significant contributions towards addressing the SDGs, in particular, goals one (reducing poverty) and two (reducing hunger). While increased yields have contributed to higher household incomes, which reduces poverty, the increased yields have also enhanced household food security (Klümper and Qaim 2014; Subramanian and Qaim 2010; Smyth 2022). Biofortified GM crops have been adopted, increasing micro-nutrient availability (Hefferon 2014). Research to improve the nutritional quality of food includes protein increases (canola, corn, potato, rice, wheat); improved oils and fatty acids (canola, corn, rice, soy); improved carbohydrates (corn, potato, sugar beet, soy); increased vitamins (potato, rice, strawberry, tomato); and increased mineral availability (letuce, rice, soy, corn, wheat) (Newell-McGloughlin 2014). Nutritionally enhanced foods improve an individual's nutrient intake, preventing and/or treating leading causes of death such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Improving the nutritional content of daily food consumption certainly has day-to-day effects, but of significant importance are the long-term effects that extend for decades over the course of an individual's lifetime.

In many instances, improving macro-nutrients (e.g., proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, fiber) and micro-nutrients (e.g., vitamins, minerals, functional metabolites) results in significant childhood health improvements, such as reducing blindness due to the lack of vitamin availability (Wesseler and Zilberman 2014; Dubock 2014). Improved food nutrient content, especially the increase in mineral availability, contributes to improved immunity systems and reduces stunting (Wesseler et al. 2017). In many developing countries, plant-based nutrient intake accounts for 100% of an individual's nutrient diet, further highlighting the importance of nutritionally enhanced crop-derived foods. Health benefits are extended into adulthood through reductions in cancer-causing mycotoxins, as is the case with GM corn, in which the presence of these mycotoxins is 30% lower (Pellegrino et al. 2018). As the later-in-life benefits from improved childhood nutrition become better understood, the full value of nutritionally enhanced crops and foods may not be realized for several decades.

One quality of life improvement that has resulted from the small land-holder adoption of GM crops is the reduction in drudgery (Gouse et al. 2016). The majority of weed control in developing countries is done, as it has been for thousands of years, through back-breaking manual labor. Manual weeding is labor commonly assigned to women. The assessment of GM corn adoption impacts on female manual weeding by Gouse et al. (2016) found that this task was reduced by three weeks over the course of a year. This reduction in the amount of time spent manually weeding corn fields allowed these women to have larger vegetable gardens, as they had more time to haul water and be with their children. Another human health benefit from GM crops is the reduction in the incidence of pesticide poisoning following GM cotton adoption. In an assessment of the impacts of GM cotton adoption in India, Kouser and Qaim (2011) estimated that there were between 2.4 and 9 million fewer cases of pesticide poisoning annually. With GM cotton first adopted in India in 2003, the
cumulative reduction in the number of pesticide poisonings can be estimated to be in excess of 100 million cases (Smyth 2020).

Innovative research in the agriculture and food sectors is transforming food systems through both the increased provision of food and more nutritious and healthy food. The increased provision of safe, nutritious food has life-long health benefits, thereby contributing to reduced healthcare system expenses.

Improved biofortification of food and health benefits from biotechnology support SDGs: 1 (End Poverty); 2 (Sustainable Food Production); and 15 (Sustainable Use of Land Biodiversity).

## 2.5 Improved Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resilience

Investments in the bioeconomy and biotechnology have made substantial environmental improvements and offer tremendous potential to be a leading strategy in the efforts to mitigate climate change. It is estimated that biomass could save 1.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent emissions per year by providing 3,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity by 2050 (Zihare et al. 2018). Concerning biofuels, their performance shows different emission reductions according to multiple factors, including considering the product's life cycle, and is closely linked to agricultural yield and the technologies applied during the primary and industrial production process. According to the IPCC (2011), the “good use of bioenergy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared with alternative fossils.” In this sense, it is necessary to establish national instruments of measure for GHG emissions throughout the life cycle of biofuels according to the different raw materials used to corroborate the environmental advantages. Besides, bio-based products release fewer GHG emissions compared to fossil carbon commodities (Antar et al. 2021). For example, since bioplastics consume less energy during their production than plastics derived from petroleum, they tend to emit less carbon dioxide in their life cycle (Yadav et al. 2020).

Another contribution of the bioeconomy towards sustainability is the reduction and use of food waste. In the agro-industrial sector in LAC, food waste is around 127 million tons per year, enough to satisfy the nutritional needs of 300 million people (Macias et al. 2018). Thanks to the advances in S&T, multiple technologies allow for the reduction of waste and its use to produce new bioproducts (e.g., for the food, energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, and construction industries). Food waste can be considered as a cheap feedstock for producing value-added products such as biofertilizers, biofuels, biomethane, biogas and value-added chemicals (Hassan et al. 2018). These new industries have the potential to contribute to the mitigation objectives of climate change and the environmental sustainability of productive commercial activities thanks to the switch from products of fossil origin with a
high carbon footprint to inputs (waste) that had a high generation of carbon dioxide emissions and to the change in the energy matrix.

The commercialization of GM herbicide tolerant canola, corn and soy in the mid-1990s revolutionized land management practices, resulting in tens of millions of acres being transitioned to zero tillage. The additional commercialization of GM insect-resistant corn, cotton and soy has resulted in millions of fewer pesticide applications. The reduction in tillage and chemical applications has produced a significant environmental benefit, with 2.4 billion kg fewer carbon dioxide emissions and 775 million kg fewer chemically active ingredients being applied (Brookes and Barfoot 2020). It has been estimated that the commercialization of insect-resistant crops has reduced global pesticide use by 37% (Klümper and Qaim 2014). Not only are there fewer GHG emitted during the production of crops, the continuous cropping of fields with no tillage is increasing the soils' sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide (Sutherland et al. 2021). Conventional agricultural practices that require the use of tillage for weed control are estimated to have a net global warming potential that is 26–31% higher than zero-tillage land (Mangalassery et al. 2014).

The adoption of GM crops is driving the movement to sustainable crop produc-
tion by removing tillage as the leading form of weed control. The environmental
benefits from this are significant for sustainability, as, in one analysis, 86% of
farmers reported decreased soil erosion and 83% reported increased moisture con-
servation (Smyth et al. 2011). A further benefit from the removal of tillage is that the
rate of herbicide resistance development in weed populations has declined following
the wide adoption of GM crops (Kniss 2018). The adoption of GM technology in
corn, soybean and cotton reduced agricultural land and input use and saved 0.15 Gt
of GHG emissions, equivalent to roughly one-eighth of the emissions from automo-
biles in the US (Barrows et al. 2014).

One emerging and vital area of innovative bioeconomy research is the use of innovative breeding technologies, including genome editing, to improve the abilities of plants to sequester increased amounts of carbon dioxide, allowing agricultural food production to make significant contributions to reducing the impacts of changing climates (Ort et al. 2015). Changes in a plant's ability to photosynthesize can have additional yield-enhancing benefits (Baslam et al. 2020). Bioeconomy photosynthesis research that results in plants sequestering greater volumes of carbon dioxide and higher yields will ensure that crop production levels do not decline in the face of changing climates.

Plant breeding involving biotechnology and genome editing is also providing additional sustainability benefits by developing new varieties that are resistant to diseases that threaten to destroy species. Fungal diseases and viruses have had devastating impacts on the production of coffee, for which an estimated 60% of all production is threatened (Davis et al. 2019). Similar circumstances exist regarding the production of bananas (FAO 2020), oranges (Nelson 2019) and cocoa (Ploetz 2007). The technology is also being applied to reintroduce species into regions where they were previously made extinct due to disease, such as the case with the American chestnut tree (The American Chestnut Foundation 2015).
The environmental benefits from GM crops are making substantial contributions to improving the sustainability of agriculture and food production. The reduction in GHG emissions, increased carbon dioxide sequestration and improved photosynthesis provide a leading solution for the mitigation of changing climates.

The application of biotechnologies that improve environmental sustainability and climate resilience supports SDGs: 2 (Sustainable Food Production); and 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

## 2.6 Upscaling Biotechnology Innovations

Humanity is facing major challenges, including climate change, food security and rural development. The bioeconomy is poised to play a central role in addressing these challenges. New technologies in the life and information sciences, combined with practical knowledge of production practices and ecosystems, can unleash the bioeconomy's potential. This requires significant investment in basic and applied research, training highly skilled professionals and fostering a fluid relationship between academia and industry. Zilberman et al. (2013) suggest that the 'educational industrial complex' has been essential in establishing the biotechnology and information technology sectors in the US and throughout the world. In the educational industrial complex, publicly supported basic research within universities and other research institutions leads to discoveries and innovations that are transferred to and expanded by startups and other private sector actors. Their development efforts lead to products that are produced and marketed by the private sector and transferred to final users. The educational industrial complex has already led to the establishment of supply chains of new products, including biofuels and oils, fine chemicals, pharmaceuticals and foods. University researchers have led some of these new ventures and the exchange between universities and the private sector in clusters like the Bay Area, St. Louis, Davis, Sao Paolo, San Diego, Austin, Mendoza, Santiago, etc.

The supply chains that emerge from these industrial clusters provide direct employment in the production of technological devices and even greater opportunities in the industries resulting from these technologies. The resulting bioeconomy industries are more likely to be concentrated in rural regions, alleviating rural poverty. For example, biofuel and fine chemical production can transfer rents from owners of non-renewable resources like fossil fuels to the expanded agri-food sector. The success of the educational industrial complex depends on maintaining academic and research excellence. The pioneering knowledge produced by EMBRAPA was key to the emergence of Brazil as an agricultural powerhouse, suggesting that support for outstanding research institutes linked with industry is a sound social investment.

The three main obstacles to the development of the bioeconomy sector are regulatory uncertainty, high transaction costs and financial constraints (Zilberman et al. 2013). Upscaling and applying new knowledge requires a science-based
regulatory environment that aims to reduce regulatory burden and accelerate the development and application of new, safe technologies. The emergence of entrepreneurial startups is more likely when venture investors and capital markets are established to support new industries and when regulatory procedures are streamlined to reduce the cost and time needed to establish the venture.

Greater efficiencies in the commercialization and adoption of innovative biotechnological techniques and products contribute to SDGs: 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy); 9 (Industry and Innovation); and 15 (Sustainable Use of Land Biodiversity).

## 3 The Path Forward

Food systems, the “activities involved in producing, processing, transporting and consuming food” (UN 2021), are an integral part of the bioeconomy concept as a development approach. New developments in the biological sciences allow countries to address the many challenges society is facing. We have summarized the many opportunities the biological sciences have to offer. The translation of these opportunities into practice will not be trivial. There are a number of institutional factors that delay or prevent full exploitation of the opportunities that the bioeconomy has on offer. To move forward, these constraints must be addressed. First, research capacity at universities and government institutes that can turn these opportunities into technical and social innovations must be developed. Second, the growth-supporting industries based on these innovations and the supply chains that generate employment and economic growth should be supported. Third, regulations of innovations that protect society, but do not disrupt the application of these opportunities in production, transportation, and consumption and unnecessarily restrict sustainable growth, jobs and resilience, are needed. The differences in regulations and support for innovations and the industries that can spread them in different countries often reflect different societal norms and values. These institutional barriers are difficult to solve by one country alone. The UN Food Systems Summit brought together many countries and many people to discuss the removal of institutional barriers.

Our overview has shown that a lot can be achieved by building research capacity and reducing institutional barriers. The impacts will go beyond the food systems and affect other sectors of national economies as well. An open discussion will be needed that takes differences in norms and values into account without discriminating one against another. The UN Food Systems Summit provided the opportunity. The results depend on us.
## References

Akutse K, Subramanian S, Maniania N, Dubois T, Ekesi S (2020) Biopesticide research and product development in Africa for sustainable agriculture and food security – experiences from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.563016

Andalusian Bioeconomy Strategy (2018) Estrategia Andaluza de Bioeconomía Circular. Available at: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/export/drupaljda/Estrategia_Andaluza_Bioeconomia_Circular_EABC_18.09.2018.pdf

Antar M, Lyu D, Nazari M, Shah A, Zhou X, Smith DL (2021) Biomass for a sustainable bioeconomy: an overview of world biomass production and utilization. Renew Sust Energ Rev 139:110691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110691

Barrows G, Sexton S, Zilberman D (2014) Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. J Econ Perspect 28(1):99–120. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.1.99

Baslam M, Mitsui T, Hodges M, Priesack E, Herritt MT, Aranjuelo I, Sanz-Sáez A (2020) Photosynthesis in a changing global climate: scaling up and scaling down in crops. Front Plant Sci 11:882. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00882

Baumol W, Willing R, Panzar J (1982) Contestable markets and the theory of industrial structure. San Diego, United States of America, Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich

Betancur C, Moñux D, Canavire G, Villanueva D, García J, María L, Méndez K, Cristina A, Olaguer E (2018) Estudio sobre la bioeconomía como fuente de nuevas industrias basadas en el capital natural de Colombia. N.º1230667, Fase I. BIOINTROPIC, Colombia. Available at: https://www.dnp.gov.co/Crecimiento-Verde/Documents/ejes-tematicos/Bioeconomia/informe%201/INFORME%20BIOECONOMIA%20FASE%20%20FINAL%2024012018.pdf

Biber-Freudenberger L, Ergeneman C, Förster JJ, Dietz T, Börner J (2020) Bioeconomy futures: expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio-based transformation. Sustain Dev 28(5):1220–1235. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2072

Brookes G, Barfoot P (2020) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food 11(4):215–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198

Calicioglu Ö, Bogdanski A (2021) Linking the bioeconomy to the 2030 sustainable development agenda: can SDG indicators be used to monitor progress towards a sustainable bioeconomy? New Biotechnol 61:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.010

Chamberlain JL, Darr D, Meinhold K (2020) Rediscovering the contributions of forests and trees to transition global food systems. Forests 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101098

Chavarria H, Trigo E, Villarreal F, Elverdin P, Piñeiro V (2020) Bioeconomy: a sustainable development strategy. The G20 Insights Platform, Think 20 Engagement Group. Available at: https://www.g20-insights.org/policy_briefs/bioeconomy-a-sustainable-development-strategy/

Chen X, Nuñez HM, Bing X (2015) Explaining the reductions in Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production costs: importance of technological change. GCB Bioenergy 7:468–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12163

Colombian Government (2020) Estrategia Nacional de Bioeconomía de Colombia. Bioeconomía para una Colombia Potencia viva y diversa: Hacia una sociedad impulsada por el conocimiento. Available at: https://minciencias.gov.co/sites/default/files/upload/paginas/bioeconomia_para_un_crecimiento_sostenible-qm_print.pdf

Coremberg A (2019) Medición de la cadena de valor de la bioeconomía en Argentina: hacia una cuenta satelite. Ministerio de Producción y Trabajo, Bolsa de Cereales, Grupo Bioeconomía. Buenos Aíres. Available at: https://www.magyp.gob.ar/sitio/areas/bioeconomia/_archivos/Medicion_de_la_Bioeconomia2018.pdf

D'Amato D, Droste N, Allen B, Kettunen M, Lähtinen K, Korhonen J, Toppinen A (2017) Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J Clean Prod 168:716–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053
D'Amato D, Korhonen J, Toppinen A (2019) Circular, green, and bio economy: how do companies in land-use intensive sectors align with sustainability concepts? *Ecol Econ* 158:116–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.026

Davis AP, Chadburn H, Moat J, O'Sullivan R, Hargreaves S, Nic Lughadha E (2019) High extinction risk for wild coffee species and implications for coffee sector sustainability. *Sci Adv* 5(1):3473. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3473

Debnath D, Khanna M, Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2019) The future of biofuels in an electrifying global transportation sector: imperative, prospects and challenges. *Appl Econ Perspect Policy* 41:563–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppz023

Draca M, Martin R, Sanchis-Guarner R (2018) The evolving role of ICT in the economy. A report by LSE consulting for Huawei. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/business-and-consultancy/consulting/assets/documents/the-evolving-role-of-ict-in-the-economy.pdf

Dubock A (2014) The politics of golden rice. GM Crops Food 5(3):210–222. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.967570

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Chile), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy), and IICA (Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, Costa Rica) (2019) Outlook for agriculture and rural development in the Americas: a look at Latin America and the Caribbean 2019–2020. IICA, San José. Available at: https://repositorio.iica.int/bitstream/handle/11324/12380/BVE20107947e.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Fernández FGA, Reis A, Wijffels RH, Barbosa M, Verdelho V, Llamas B (2021) The role of microalgae in the bioeconomy. *New Biotechnol* 61:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.11.011

Food and Agriculture Organization (2020) Banana fusarium wilt disease forecasting. Available at: http://www.fao.org/food-chain-crisis/how-we-work/plant-protection/banana-fusarium-wilt/en/

Gabashwedi MS, Zikhona LL, Sukoluhle M, Tshwafo M (2019) Economic and technical feasibility studies: technologies for second generation biofuels. J Eng Design Technol 17(4): 670–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2018-0111

Global Bioeconomy Summit (2018) Global Bioeconomy Summit Communique. https://bioekonomierat.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/empfehlungen/GBS_2018_Comunique.pdf

Gouse M, Sengupta D, Zambrano P, Falck-Zepeda J (2016) Genetically modified maize: less drudgery for her, more maize for him? World Dev 83:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.008

Hartley F, van Seventer D, Tostão E, Arndt C (2019) Economic impacts of developing a biofuel industry in Mozambique. Dev South Afr 36(2):233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1548962

Hassan SS, Williams GA, Jaiswal AK (2018) Emerging technologies for the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 262:310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.099

Hefferon KL (2014) Nutritionally enhance food crops; progress and perspectives. Int J Mol Sci 16: 3895–3914

Hendriks S, Soussana JF, Cole M, Kambugu A, Ziberman D (2020) Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all through transformation of food systems (Action track 1). Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit

Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D'Croz D, Palmer J, Benton TG, Bodirsky BL et al (2020a) Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food 1(5): 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Herrero M, Hugas M, Lele U, Wira A, Torero M (2020b) Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns (Action track 2)

Hertel T, Elouafi I, Ewert F, Tanticharoen M (2020) Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses (Action track 5). Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit
Hodson E, Niggli U, Kaoru K, Lal R, Sadoff C (2020) Boost nature positive production at sufficient scale (Action track 3). Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit

IACGB (International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy) (2020) Communiqué: expanding the sustainable bioeconomy – vision and way forward. Available at https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GBS2020_IACGB-Communique.pdf

IACGBS (International Advisory Council of the Global Bioeconomy Summit 2018) (2018) Communiqué: innovation in the global bioeconomy for sustainable and inclusive. Transformation and wellbeing. Available at: https://gbs2018.com/fileadmin/gbs2018/Downloads/GBS_2018_Communique.pdf

IEA (International Energy Agency, Francia) (2019) World Energy Balances 2019 (online). Paris. Retrieved January 21, 2020. Available at: https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-balances-2019

ILO (International Labour Organization) (2020) Sector rural y desarrollo local en América Latina y el Caribe. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/americas/temas/sector-rural-y-desarrollo-local/lang%2D%2Des/index.htm

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2011) Summary for policymakers. In: IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2012) Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Italian Government (2019) The updated Italian bioeconomy strategy BIT II. Available at: http://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/media/1774/bit_en_2019_02.pdf

Kardung M, Cingiz K, Costenoble O, Delahaye R, Heijman W, Lovrić M, van Leeuwen M, M'Barek R, van Meijl H, Piotrowski S, Ronzon T, Sauer J, Verhoog D, Verkerk PJ, Vrachioli M, Wesseler JHH, Zhu BX (2020) Development of the circular bioeconomy: drivers and indicators. Sustainability 13(1):413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010413

Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629

Kniss AR (2018) Genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and herbicide-resistant Weed evolution in the United States. Weed Sci 66(2):260–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2017.70

Kouser S, Qaim M (2011) Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis. Ecol Econ 70:2105–2113

Krüger A, Schäfers C, Busch P, Antranikian G (2020) Digitalization in microbiology – paving the path to sustainable circular bioeconomy. New Biotechnol 59:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.06.004

Lewandowski I (2018) Bioeconomy: shaping the transition to a sustainable, biobased economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68152-8

Linser S, Lier M (2020) The contribution of sustainable development goals and forest-related indicators to national bioeconomy progress monitoring. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072898

Lokkoa Y, Marc H, Karl S, Philippe S, Van Montagu M, Mauro G (2017) Biotechnology and the bioeconomy – towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development. New Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.005.

Macias M, Girón C, Nieto M, Chavrier N, Páez D, Ureña M, Moreno J, García M, de la ViñHassan SS, Williams GA, Jaiswal AK (2018) Emerging technologies for the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 262:310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.099

Malyska A, Jacob J (2018) Plant breeding as the cornerstone of a sustainable bioeconomy. New Biotechnol 40(Part A, 25):129–132

Mangalassery S, Sjögersten S, Sparkes DL, Sturrock CJ, Craigon J, Mooney SJ (2014) To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Sci Rep 4:4586. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04586
Melgar-Lalanne G, Hernández-Álvarez A-J, Salinas-Castro A (2019) Edible insects processing: traditional and innovative technologies. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 18(4):1166–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12463

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (2005) The third revolution: the convergence of the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering. Consulted at: https://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/research-science-and-technology/hibar/resources/MITwhitepaper.pdf

Nelson D (2019) 75 percent of Florida’s oranges have been lost to disease. Can science save citrus? Available at: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/75-percent-floridas-oranges-have-been-lost-disease-can-science-save-citrus#:~:text=%E2%80%9CCitrus%20is%20so%20important%20to,threatened%20by%20a%20devastating%20disease.%E2%80%9D&text=The%20disease%20is%20called%20huanglongbing, is%20now%20spreading%20in%20California

Neufeld L, Huang J, Badiane O, Caron P, Sennerby-Forsse L (2020) Advance equitable livelihoods (Action track 4). Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit

Newell-McGloughlin M (2014) Health effects. In: Ludlow K, Smyth SJ, Falck-Zepeda J (eds) Socio-economic considerations in biotechnology regulations. Springer, New York, pp 125–143

Ordoñez-Araque R, Egas-Montenegro E (2021) Edible insects: a food alternative for the sustainable development of the planet. Int J Gastro Food Sci 23:100304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100304

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2018) The future of rural youth in developing countries: tapping the potential of local value chains. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264298521-en

Ort DR, Merchant SS, Alric J, Barkan A, Blankenship RE, Bock R, Croce R, Hanson MR, Hibberd JM, Long SP, Moore TA, Moroney J, Niyogi KK, Parry MAJ, Peralta-Yahya PP, Prince RC, Redding KE, Spalding MH, van Wijk KJ, Vermaas WFJ, von Caemmerer S, Weber APM, Yeates TO, Yuan JS, Guang Zhu X (2015) Redesigning photosynthesis to sustainably meet global food and bioenergy demand. PNAS 112(28):8529–8536. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424031112

Park HS (2017) Technology convergence, open innovation, and dynamic economy. J Open Innov 3:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0074-z

Patermann C, Aguilar A (2018) The origins of the bioeconomy in the European Union. New Biotechnol 40:20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.04.002

Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Nuti M, Ercoli L (2018) Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci Rep 8(3113):1–12

Ploetz RC (2007) Cacao diseases: important threats to chocolate production worldwide. Phytopathology 12:1634–1639. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-97-12-1634

Post MJ, Levenberg S, Kaplan DL, Genovese N, Fu J, Bryant CJ et al (2020) Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nature Food 1(7):403–415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z

Refsgaard K, Kull M, Slätmo E, Meijer MW (2021) Bioeconomy – a driver for regional development in the Nordic countries. New Biotechnol 60:130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.10.001

Ronzon T, Piotrowski S, Tamosiunas S, Dammer L, Carus M, M’barek, R. (2020) Developments of economic growth and employment in bioeconomy sectors across the EU. Sustainability 12(11): 4507. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114507

Riva F (2020) to meeting the challenges of the rural electricity-development nexus. Energy Sustain Dev 59:226–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.10.009

Sandra N, Alessandro P (2021) Consumers’ preferences, attitudes and willingness to pay for bio-textile in wood fibers. J Retail Consum Serv 58:102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102304

Smyth SJ (2020) The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnol J 18(4):887–888
Smyth SJ (2022) Contributions of genome editing technologies towards improved nutrition, environmental sustainability and poverty reduction. Front Genome Edit 4:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2022.863193

Smyth SJ, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips PWB, Castle D (2011) Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada. Agric Syst 104(5):403–410

Subramanian A, Qaim M (2010) The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. J Dev Stud 46:295–311

Sutherland C, Gleim S, Smyth SJ (2021) Correlating genetically modified crops, glyphosate use, and increased carbon sequestration. Sustainability 13:11679. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111679

Tamburini E, Gaglio M, Castaldelli G, Fano EA (2020) Biogas from agri-food and agricultural waste can appreciate agro-ecosystem services: the case study of Emilia Romagna region. Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208392

The American Chestnut Foundation (2015) Science strategies. Available at: https://acf.org/science-strategies/tree-breeding/

Torres-Giner S, Prieto C, Lagaron JM (2020) Nanomaterials to enhance food quality, safety, and health impact. Nanomaterials 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10050941

Torroba A (2020a) Liquid biofuels in the Americas: current situation and potential for development. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). San José. Available at: http://repositorio.iica.int/bitstream/handle/11324/9975/BVE20058034i.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

Torroba A (2020b) Atlas de los biocombustibles líquidos 2019–2020. San José. Available at: https://repositorio.iica.int/bitstream/handle/11324/13974/BVE20128304e.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

United Nations (2021) Food systems summit 2021. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/about. Accessed 14 Feb 2021

Usmani Z, Sharma M, Awasthi AK, Sivakumar N, Lukk T, Pecoraro L et al (2021) Bioprocessing of waste biomass for sustainable product development and minimizing environmental impact. Bioresour Technol 322:124548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124548

van Dijk ADJ, Kootstra G, Kruijer W, de Ridder D (2021) Machine learning in plant science and plant breeding. iScience 24(1):101890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101890

von Braun J, Afsana K, Frescom L, Hassan M, Torero M (2020) Food systems – definition, concept and application for the UN Food Systems Summit. Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit

WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2020) The circular bioeconomy: A business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world. Geneva. Available at https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/Factor-10/Resources/The-circular-bioeconomy-A-busi-ness-opportunity-contributing-to-a-sustainable-world?fbclid=IwAR0qdYD0UCczuTvzV3YhSqhxlI Au6ftnvbR7kQ1ee758pT4S cn_iLg7e0

Wesseler J, von Braun J (2017) Measuring the bioeconomy: economics and policies. Ann Rev Resour Econ 9:17.1–17.24

Wesseler J, Zilberman D (2014) The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environ Dev Econ 19(6):724–742. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X1300065X

Wesseler J, Smart RD, Thomson J, Zilberman D (2017) Foregone benefits of important food crop improvements in Sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS ONE 12(7):e0181353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181353

Yadav B, Pandey A, Kumar LR, Tyagi RD (2020) Bioconversion of waste (water)/residues to bioplastics- a circular bioeconomy approach. Bioresour Technol 298:122584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122584

Zihare L, Muizniece I, Spalvins K, Blumberga D (2018) Analytical framework for commercializa-
tion of the innovation: case of thermal packaging material. Energy Procedia 147:374–381.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.106

Zilberman D, Kim E, Kirschner S, Kaplan S, Reeves J (2013) Technology and the future bioeconomy. Agric Econ 44:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12054
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

Gebbiena M. Bron, J. Joukje Siebenga, and Louise O. Fresco

## 1 The Challenges

Local, regional and global food security are affected by the occurrence of epidemics of zoonotic infectious diseases, caused by pathogens that spillover from animals to humans. Inversely, the susceptibility of animals and humans to infectious diseases is shaped by their health status, as largely determined by their nutritional status. Currently, this is clearly illustrated by the COVID-19 crisis (FAO and CELAC 2020; Swinnen and McDermott 2020). Diseases that affect animals and plants also continue to disrupt food security by interrupting the food supply. A One Health approach embraces the notion that the health of animals (also including aquatic species and insects), people, plants and the environment are inextricably connected. Simultaneously, innovations that address climate change, urbanization and mobility challenges should evaluate the risk for new and (re-)emerging human, animal and plant pathogens.

The COVID-19 pandemic lays bare the interwovenness of our food systems and health (FAO et al. 2020). In addition, the pandemic exposes how human health is shaped by socio-economic status and how health affects economic and social systems in return. The current pandemic was not the first, nor will it be the last. Here, we discuss the link between global food security and healthy people, animals, plants and environments, and how we can better prepare for, and minimize the chance of, future pandemics. We conclude that both public and private parties should strengthen their One Health approach to jointly realize resilient and strong global agri-food systems and health.

<footnote>G. M. Bron (✉) · J. J. Siebenga · L. O. Fresco
Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
e-mail: Bieneke.Bron@wur.nl</footnote>
## 1.1 Interconnection Among Ecosystems, Human and Animal Health – Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 is only one example of a zoonosis, a disease caused by the ‘successful’ transmission, spillover, of a pathogen from animals to humans. SARS-CoV-2 emerged from wildlife. There are ample similar examples; ~60% of emerging infectious diseases in humans originated from animals, and ~70% thereof originated from wildlife. Such spillover events occur most commonly where the agri-food system interfaces with natural ecosystems, as this is where humans, domesticated animals and wildlife interact.

Through humanity's long history with animal husbandry and consumption, hygiene practices have evolved, reducing the likelihood of successful spillover events (e.g., food safety, clean water, and the elimination of rodents from shelters). However, increasing mobility, population densities and urbanization, as well as the growing length and scale of the global food supply chains and pressure on natural ecosystems by changing land use and water flow, have created new challenges. For example, dams can impact the availability of fresh water, fishing opportunities and yield, and change the ecosystem, possibly leading to an increased risk of human disease (e.g., schistosomiasis). These transitions put the need for adaptation of current restoration, prevention, surveillance and intervention strategies in sharper focus.

## 1.2 Poor Human Health Facilitates Infectious Disease Spread

Sub-optimal human health adds to the favorable conditions for pathogen transmission. Poor nutritional status and impaired general health of individuals and populations, for example, due to the absence of nutritious foods and access to (affordable) health care, increase susceptibility to infectious diseases. Many of the common non-infectious diseases, including obesity, diabetes, cancer and cardio-vascular diseases, impair the body's immune response. These chronic conditions lower barriers to successful pathogen spillover from animals to humans, and subsequent pathogen transmission between people. Similar to other infectious diseases, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with poor nutritional status and underlying health issues.

# 2 Impact of Zoonotic Infectious Diseases on Food Security

## 2.1 Direct Impacts

Large disease outbreaks disrupt overall mobility, the workforce and the supply chain (Wageningen University and Research 2020). Both the disease itself and the measures implemented to combat the COVID-19 pandemic hindered or disabled part
of the workforce and continue to do so. Such disruptions in the workforce affect food
supply and, in many cases, workers' income or the economic viability of businesses
in the food system (Egger et al. 2021). In addition, restrictions on travel limit the
movement of workers, disrupting harvest and processing operations. Similarly, trade
restrictions slow down and limit the movement of goods, affecting supply and
demand.

## 2.2 *Indirect Impacts*

Cascading effects of the pandemic increase price volatility and disrupt food security and the livelihoods of those dependent on the food supply chain (Zurayk 2020). COVID-19, similar to, for example, past influenza outbreaks, has changed consumption patterns. Combined with travel and trade restrictions, this resulted in, among other things, uncertainties in the food supply chain that led to volatility in producer and consumer prices. These disrupted markets most severely affect vulnerable populations, e.g., low-income families – leaving them unable to acquire nutritious food – or small farm operations. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to have put about a third of the jobs in the food value chain at risk (451 million jobs out of ~1.3 billion), disrupting the livelihoods of ~1 billion people (Swinnen and McDermott 2020).

## 2.3 SARS-CoV-2 and Other Infectious Pathogens
*in the Food Chain*

Zoonotic and other infectious pathogens can be transmitted via many different routes, including water and food products. The main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 is the respiratory route, but anecdotal evidence is available of detection of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in frozen products (e.g., ice-cream, fish) (Plowright et al. 2017). Currently, in February 2021, the movement of SARS-CoV-2 through the cold chain is still considered as a possible route of introduction of the pathogen to the urbanized center of Wuhan, China, from where it spread across the world.

The presence of pathogens in food systems may trigger interventions to stop pathogen spread. Although we focus on zoonotic pathogens here, animal and plant diseases and pests should be kept in mind. Similar to zoonotic pathogens, the range and outbreak frequencies of these disruptors of the food supply chain and health are expected to change due to the effects of climate change. Interventions to mitigate zoonotic and notifiable animal and plant pathogens, including transport bans, the destruction of crops, and culling, directly impact the food chain and the businesses and livelihoods of those relying on it.
# 3 Adapting the Agri-Food System to Limit Pathogen Risk

Reducing the likelihood of spillover and onwards transmission risks of pathogens can be achieved through (i) reducing the need for natural habitat disruption, (ii) smart management of both sides of the interface between natural ecosystems and the agri-food system, and vigilance at the human-animal interface within the agri-food system, and (iii) improving overall human, animal and environmental health.

## 3.1 Decreasing Habitat Disruption Through the Sustainable Intensification of Land Use

Sustainable intensification of land use could aid in limiting contact between humans and livestock with natural ecosystems and wildlife. To continue to meet the growing demand for food, further acreage expansion by conversion of natural habitats into agricultural lands is expected in several regions of the world. The pressure on natural ecosystems, caused by the expanding agri-food system, tends to negatively affect biodiversity and the resilience and health of wildlife, and increases the frequency of human, domestic animal and wildlife contact. These factors all contribute to increasing the chance of spillover occurring (Plowright et al. 2017). Hence, there is a clear need to reduce natural habitat disruption. Acknowledging that the demand for food will continue to grow, reducing habitat disruption may be achieved by using and encouraging sustainable intensification practices, and by reducing food waste and promoting the consumption of products with a smaller resource use footprint.

## 3.2 Smart Management and Vigilance at the Interfaces Through Surveillance and a Readiness to Intervene

Risk assessments should inform surveillance and readiness strategies to optimize pathogen detection and intervention. Over the past decades, we have created an increasingly connected network in which pathogens can spread, with the agri-food system being an integral part of this conduit (Bakalis et al. 2020). Here, the domains of food security, food safety and animal, environmental, plant and human health clearly overlap: from hunting practices to livestock farming, from butchering practices at home to slaughterhouses, from trade of live animals in markets and unsafe food preparation practices to contaminated food products in supermarkets, and the length and scale of parts of the global food system.

Detection efforts aimed at preventing pathogen spillover and spread throughout these highly connected networks can be optimized by mapping and assessing the risk, specifically, at the human and domestic animal-wildlife interface and in the transport (cold) chain. Regulation, targeted sampling and surveillance throughout
the system, complemented by appropriate hygiene and biosecurity measures, form
the first steps to preventing shocks to the food system and health.

Optimized surveillance at the human-domestic animal-wildlife interfaces may enable early detection of (re)emerging pathogens and unexplained disease symptoms (e.g., undiagnosed pneumonia in the case of SARS-CoV-2). This early detection provides the opportunity for early interventions and a re-design of the system. Importantly, clear communication with producers and the public about biosecurity measures and a rapid and strong unified response are needed to prevent and control potential outbreaks.

## 3.3 Improving Overall Human, Animal and Environmental Health – A Global One Health Approach

The current pandemic presents opportunities for positive change (Monti 2021). This is the time for governments, the private sector and society as a whole to create more resilient food production and trade systems that put less strain on the environment and insulate vulnerable populations from shocks – instead of amplifying their vulnerability (as is happening with COVID-19).

Food security is essential to human health and wellbeing, and a healthy human population is less susceptible to pathogens (e.g., by reduced undernutrition, obesity, and resulting diseases). Governmental actions can lead the way to providing food security, by ensuring the functioning of the food supply chain and food systems (e.g., minimizing disruption in the trade of goods, providing employment services to migrant workers), and by communicating clearly to avoid mass panic and disproportional consumer behavior during disease outbreaks (PAHO 2021). The private sector can weigh their impact on health and the environment, considering that their supply chain may be disrupting natural habitats and that unknown pathogens may emerge at their farms, be transported in their cold chains, or disproportionately affect their staff. These actions, serving the global and national good, should be governed through global institutions to ensure governance of the food system and health for all. We, humans should also recognize the impact of the consumption choices that we make on a daily basis.

The interconnectedness of environmental, human and animal health can be leveraged in food systems to find unconventional opportunities to improve health (Fasina et al. 2021). Further research and an improved understanding of the role of food systems in the context of Global One Health may provide additional entry points via the food system for sustainable, culturally acceptable and economically feasible interventions.

# 4 Towards Food System Resilience

Resilient systems allowing for rapid recovery are needed to minimize direct and indirect health effects of shocks to the food system. Shocks, small and large, will continue to disrupt food systems, although efforts to prevent and minimize shocks
(as described above for zoonotic infectious diseases) may reduce the frequency and severity of shocks.

Management of the interdependencies between health and food systems to improve health for all presents many challenges, including the need for a change in mindset. Nevertheless, the elements that connect the food system with environmental, animal, plant and human health, as well as human health systems, are becoming more visibly connected in global, regional and national initiatives (Berthe et al. 2018). The 2021 UN Food Systems Summit is one example of such an initiative using an interconnected approach to set the stage for global food system transformation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Another example is the September 2020 initiative to create a One Health High-Level Expert Council by UN Environment, FAO, OIE and WHO to address risks at the human-animal-environment interface. Furthermore, there is the materiality matrix in corporate sustainability reports, wherein stakeholder interests and a company's social, economic, and environmental impact are weighted. Also, the European commission is moving towards a code of conduct for participants in the food supply chain. Such a code of conduct could be considered at a global level. When consumers, producers and governments combine their efforts and take a Global One Health approach to re-designing the agri-food system, significant steps can be made towards food system resilience and better health.

## References

Bakalis S, Valdramidis VP, Argyropoulos D, Ahrne L, Chen J, Cullen PJ, Cummins E, Datta AK, Emmanouilidis C, Foster T, Fryer PJ, Gouseti O, Hospido A, Knoerzer K, LeBail A, Marangoni AG, Rao P, Schlüter OK, Taoukis P, Xanthakis E, Van Impe JFM (2020) Perspectives from CO +RE: how COVID-19 changed our food systems and food security paradigms. Curr Res Food Sci 3:166-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2020.05.003

Berthe FCJ, Bouley T, Karesh WB, Le Gall FG, Machalaba CC, Plante CA, Seifman RM (2018) Operational framework for strengthening human, animal and environmental public health systems at their interface. World Bank Group, Washington, DC. (English). http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/703711517234402168/Operational-framework-for-strengthening-human-animal-and-environmental-public-health-systems-at-their-interface

Egger D, Miguel E, Warren SS, Shenoy A, Collins E, Karlan D, Parkerson D, Mobarak AM, Fink G, Udry C, Walker M, Haushofer J, Larreboure M, Athey S, Lopez-Pena P, Benhachmi S, Humphreys M, Lowe L, Meriggi NF, Wabwire A, Davis CA, Pape UJ, Graff T, Voors M, Nekesa C, Vernot C (2021) Falling living standards during the COVID-19 crisis: quantitative evidence from nine developing countries. Sci Adv 7(6):eabe0997. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0997

FAO and CELAC (2020) Food security under the COVID-19 pandemic. FAO and CELAC, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8873en

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, Rome

Fasina FO, Fasanmi OG, Makonnen YJ, Bebay C, Bett B, Roesel K (2021) The one health landscape in Sub-Saharan African countries. One Health 13:100325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100325
Monti M (2021) Chaired Independent Commission of WHO-Europe: Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development. Report: drawing light from the pandemic – a new strategy for health and sustainable development. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/511701/Pan-European-Commission-health-sustainable-development-eng.pdf

PAHO (2021) Food security in a pandemic. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://www.paho.org/disasters/index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&categoryiboardocman&Itemid=1179&lang=en

Plowright RK, Parrish CR, McCallum H, Hudson PJ, Ko AI, Graham AL, Lloyd-Smith JO (2017) Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat Rev Microbiol 15(8):502–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.45

Swinnen J, McDermott J (2020) COVID-19 and global food security. International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133762

Wageningen University & Research (2020) The effects of COVID-19 on food systems: rapid assessments. https://www.wur.nl/en/Research-Results/Research-Institutes/centre-for-development-innovation/Our-Value-Propositions/Guiding-Sector-Transformation/The-effects-of-COVID-19-on-food-systems-rapid-assessments.htm

Zurayk R (2020) Pandemic and food security. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev 9(3):17–21. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.014

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>
# How Could Science–Policy Interfaces Boost Food System Transformation?

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Etienne Hainzelin, Patrick Caron, Frank Place, Arlène Alpha, Sandrine Dury, Ruben Echeverria, and Amanda Harding

## 1 Introduction

There is broad agreement—both among and between researchers and policymakers— on the need to transform food systems to make them more healthy, sustainable and resilient. Countries have committed to this effort in the declaration on the “Future We Want” and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Behind this agreement, however, are disagreements about what exactly needs to be transformed, the pathways to transformation, and the role of technology in the transformation process as we pursue food systems that work for the poor as well as the wealthy. First, although the transformation challenge is global, food systems are hugely diverse, context- and culture-specific, and embedded in a very complex world that is facing growing

E. Hainzelin (✉)

The French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD),
University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

e-mail: etienne.hainzelin@cirad.fr

P. Caron

High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the United Nations Committee on World Food Security and CIRAD, Vice president for International Affairs, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

F. Place

Institutions, and Markets, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Montpellier, France

A. Alpha · S. Dury

CIRAD, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

R. Echeverria

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Montpellier, France

A. Harding

Convene, Paris, France
uncertainties. Thus, a solution that is viable for one context may not work in another; solutions must be custom-fit for specific situations, constraints, and the capacity to change of the stakeholders involved. Second, scientists and policymakers are only two groups among a complex set of actors involved in food system transformation. Within and across each set of actors—scientists, policymakers, private sector entities, civil society organizations, and so on—there is a wide diversity of viewpoints and visions, as well as diverging values, interests, strategies, and power (Resnick et al. 2018; OECD 2021a). In this complex setting of science—society relations, science—policy interfaces play a key role. Policymakers receive information from different constituencies, scientists being one of them; what distinguishes scientists is that, when they disagree, which is common, they have the capacity to say, from a scientific point of view, what is commonly accepted, what is known, where consensus is lacking, and why.

Since the seventeenth century Age of Enlightenment, science has been viewed as the driver of progress for humanity. Scientists' and policymakers' roles were well defined: scientists would think rationally so as to understand the world and, in some cases, to define and solve problems, and would then provide input for decision-makers. Today, however, the dialogue between science and policy has become more complex (Von Braun 2018). First, the categories of actors are not clear-cut. For example, in many advanced countries, private agricultural research (R&D) is pre-eminent in the food sector; as a result, the private sector is, simultaneously a strong business stakeholder, a powerful scientific actor, and an active political lobby. Second, in practice, scientists and policymakers have different rules and rhythms, and different kinds of accountability to society. Their roles are evolving rapidly, especially in this era when the credibility of and trust in science is subject to increasing scrutiny by politicians and society as a whole. The participation of both citizens and the private sector further muddle science—policy interfaces. Citizens increasingly question food-system-related science, asking scientists to be accountable, and participate more in governing local food systems (Laforge et al. 2016; Andrée et al. 2019).

In this renewed and pluri-actors context, the roles of scientists and policymakers must evolve to meet expectations for their contributions to food system transformation. Science—policy interfaces are currently both bottlenecks to change, when they do not function well, and potential powerhouses for food system transformation when they are active and effective.

This chapter describes the wide diversity within the science and policy spheres and the multifaceted nature of science—policy interfaces. It argues that enhancing the powerful leverage of science—policy interfaces requires that both researchers and policymakers go beyond conventional roles to do “business as un-usual.” These recommendations draw heavily from the synthesis of the high-level event **Bonding Science and Policy to Accelerate Food Systems Transformation**, held on
February 4, 2021,<fnref n="1" /> to contribute to the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), with the participation of the Summit's organizers. With over 40 presenters and 600 delegates from more than 60 countries representing decision-and policymakers, international organizations, civil society, the private sector, think tanks, and academics, this event put out a strong call to action for both the science and policy communities (Hainzelin et al. 2021).

1. A wide variety of scientists and policymakers

## 2 On the Science Side

Science is a very broad concept, and scientific research, or “science in the making,” is one central factor in permanent transformation (Latour 1987). Indeed, scientific institutions have a specific mandate to produce certified knowledge, applying rigorous methods backed by credible theories. Scientists use specific tools (experimental methods, statistical analysis, conceptual modeling, and so on) to establish and test the robustness of their results. However, although scientific researchers follow common rules, the ways in which they work and produce new knowledge are very diverse and embedded in different frameworks. The issues and scientific questions they choose to study are shaped by the objectives of the institutions they work for (public/private research centers, universities), the kind of funding they rely on (public, private), and also their personal values and beliefs. Scientific communities and their priorities are thus shaped by the society they belong to and depend on (Merton 1942).

Moreover, scientific research is not the only source of knowledge and evidence; it is one among various “knowledge producers,” and global centers of expertise, such as HLPE/CFS<fnref n="2" /> and IPBES,<fnref n="3" /> now recognize the importance of local and lay knowledge.

Within the scientific world, there is a polarity—and sometimes tension—between “research-driven” (fundamental knowledge, mostly disciplinary approaches, exploration of the unknown, longer-term perspective) and “demand-driven” or “policy-driven” research (applied to problems to be solved, shorter-term perspective, mobilization of available knowledge through expertise). These research approaches relate to the policy world in different ways, but they clearly inform each other: the former provides fundamental knowledge and tools and the latter works for their integration

<footnote n="1">¹Organized by Montpellier University of Excellence (MUSE, University of Montpellier) and its members (CIRAD, INRAE, IRD) and partners, in particular, CGIAR, under the high patronage of the French Government, with support from the French Development Agency (AFD) and Agropolis International.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the UN Committee on World Food Security.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.</footnote>
across disciplinary communities. To ensure synergy between the two approaches, both science policies and institutional support are needed.

Scientific communities are thriving in both private and public settings, but with different objectives, programming, incentives, and rewards. The private sector is focused on short- and long-term profits and aligns its research accordingly. If profits are affected by how companies conduct their affairs (for example, by possible positive or negative social, nutritional, environmental impacts) due to consumer awareness and response or due to government policy, companies will orient more of their research toward those objectives. But otherwise, sustainable and equitable food systems will likely be neglected by private sector researchers and left to the public sector to address.

Research operates within a very competitive world. Fierce competition among institutions, research units, labs, and countries can be a motor for better science, even though cooperation is claimed as a necessity for tackling complex challenges. This competition is not only about funding, but also ideas, prestige, and influence, and thus plays an important role in science—policy interactions. The framing of the problems to be solved (Merton 1973) affects the legitimacy of research questions, and hence the taxpayer money invested in them. There is rivalry among disciplines; all scientific visions are not equal in terms of legitimacy or political influence (for example, the attention paid to economics—"the science of the princes" - vs other social sciences). The same holds true for scientific methods (qualitative vs. quantitative, multidisciplinary vs. transdisciplinary, and so on). There is also competition between public and private research; in agrifood system research, in which the private sector is significant and sometimes predominant, the question of legitimacy becomes very complex. In a quest for "excellence," the widespread adoption of bibliometric tools to measure science quality has sometimes generated a bias that affects the integrity, credibility, and legitimacy of scientists, which further muddles science—policy interfaces.

Finally, there is a common, albeit not explicit, theory of change about the role of scientific knowledge or evidence in the emergence of change. Because scientists' expectations can be naive when disconnected from the policy world, they sometimes expect that outstanding results, high-level publications, or breakthrough technologies should naturally flow to policymakers to shape their decisions. This is clearly not the case.

## 3 On the Policy Side

Of the variety of public actors working at different scales, only a fraction is effectively in charge of “making policies.” Political actors, for example, have a specific and eminent role in shaping a future vision and propositions and eventually governing, with their constituents giving legitimacy to their mandate. Their role is distinct from that of public actors in policymaking. In addition, as emphasized by the
concept of governance, policymaking refers to coordination processes that involve a plurality of actors, both public and private, not just a centralized executive authority.

Food system policies are closely linked with health, land, and environmental, territorial and social policies. Their implementation is therefore dispersed across various ministries, government bodies, and administrative levels, and their coordination is an inherent challenge in advancing transformational objectives. In addition, some emerging food system challenges or problems require new thinking. For example, hunger has been understood largely as a phenomenon of poverty and poor productivity (and associated with conflict); but obesity, while also a nutritional problem, is a different issue altogether. Tackling multiple objectives at once, namely, making diets and food systems healthy, inclusive, and sustainable, presents an even greater challenge for both scientists and policymakers.

Many policies are informed to some extent by scientific knowledge, including not only laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards, but also incentives for education, research, infrastructure, development, public procurement, and others. Most of these translate into budget allocations. Their scientific basis can be a key element for policy accountability, although policymakers may also have simplistic expectations of science, expecting basic, clear-cut guidance. However, science and policy are not hermetic compartments: some policymakers have a strong scientific education and background, and likewise, some scientists have experience in policymaking. The difficulty of bridging and integrating the two sides may be more about differences in the rules of the game and constraints to research and policymaking than about misunderstanding each other's worlds.

2. Interfacing science and policy at different scales, in different formats

## 4 A Relation of Supervision: Science Is Governed and Influenced by the State

A key science–policy interface is formed by “science policy”—the rules, institutions, and budgets that governments set to govern and shape science and innovation systems. Because of the nature of scientific research, there is constant negotiation between scientific institutions and governments to find an acceptable balance among command, control, the necessity to find solutions, and the demand for creativity and freedom to explore new ideas. Balance must also be achieved in science policy among principles of intellectual freedom and property rights, open access, fairness and the protection of indigenous knowledge and human subjects, inter alia, while fostering a thriving science system (UNESCO 2018). In addition, scientific advances have opened the possibility of research in contentious areas such as genetic engineering, around which countries must make decisions. Governments have responded with various policies, strategies, plans, directives, institutional arrangements, and budget allocations to address these concerns.
In agrifood innovation systems, the significant and growing role of private sector research must be recognized. Private sector spending on agricultural R&D accounted for 25% of all global research spending in 2014 (Beintema et al. 2020); when food research is also considered, the share of the private sector is even greater. In rich countries, private sector R&D accounted for more than half of all agrifood research in 2011, and the share of private sector R&D in middle-income countries doubled (from 19% to 37%) between 1980 and 2011 (Pardey et al. 2016). Although much of this growth is self-driven by companies, governments can and have promoted private research through tax rules, patent policies, public—private partnerships, and strategic allocations. Private sector research focuses mainly on development of proprietary technologies, leaving many other key aspects, like environmental or social effects of the food system, for public researchers. Private foundations, which also provide significant funding for public research institutions, represent a wider range of interests, including social and environmental impacts. Identifying priority food system topics for publicly funded research in this complex environment is a critical issue for governments and other stakeholders.

Public R&D in the agrifood sector is typically carried out by public institutions and universities, funded through autonomous public sources, government ministries and offices, and foundations. However, the increasing competition for funding blurs the distinction between public and private money. The public and private sectors also interface with research organizations and researchers from outside their country; science policy plays a role here as well, for example, in enabling the transfer of technology, recognition of testing performed elsewhere, and so on. Smaller states and low-income countries may also find it beneficial to rely heavily on regional or global innovation systems or patent offices (Graff and Pardey 2020) as a more efficient approach to meeting demand for science.

Several key challenges in the governance of science emerge from a set of OECD country reviews of national innovation policies (OECD 2021b): a lack of updated overall science, technology, and innovation strategies to guide research and development; a high level of fragmentation among both providers of science and sources of funding, rendering coordination around priority research difficult; funding levels and funding models insufficient to maintain high-quality institutions and individuals; and inadequate generation of scientists through national educational systems.

# 5 Growing Structuration and Complexity of Science—Policy Interfaces<fnref n="4" />

At national and local levels, numerous organizations and initiatives link governments and scientific institutions, reflecting a global effort to link science and society (Chabasson et al. 2016; Van der Hove 2007). These include scientific or collective

<footnote n="4">⁴UNEP definition: “Science–policy interfaces can be defined as institutions that aim to improve the identification, formulation, implementation and evaluation of policy to render governance more</footnote>
expertise committees on specific issues, tasked with providing knowledge for government policies at the legislative and executive levels. In addition, many countries have installed chief scientists at the cabinet level or have expanded experimental projects involving policymakers and scientists together, such as living labs, sometimes extending to multistakeholder platforms. The increasing number of district- and country-level mechanisms to link science and policy offer a means to share accountability.

At the international and multilateral level, there is a growing effort to build collective expertise to formulate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge about specific global problems in order to identify legitimate, efficient, and consensus-based political actions to be implemented at the global level. Similar to IPCC<fnref n="5" /> and IPBES in the climate and biodiversity domains, the experience of the HLPE/CFS offers an opportunity to mobilize scientific communities and knowledge to contribute to decision-making. Although each of these panels operates through specific modalities,<fnref n="6" /> they are similar in the way they develop negotiation processes about critical, emerging, and controversial issues: they all bring together thousands of scientists from different disciplines and regions; they all rely on consultation and peer review processes; and they are all articulated to multilateral political arenas that relate in one form or another to the United Nations. Convening thematic teams of world-class scientists, the HLPE/CFS has been recognized as a fundamental tool for building a scientific consensus on problem formulation and elements of solutions in the food security and nutrition domain (CFS 2018; Gitz and Meybeck 2011). HLPE scientific reports feed into a process of multilateral negotiation led by the CFS and involving different stakeholders, including member-state policymakers, and are eventually reflected in policies. There are also a number of flourishing scientific panels,<fnref n="7" /> some of which interact with civil society, that explicitly aim to use scientific knowledge to influence policies, a number of them playing a clear advocacy role. With their well-communicated reports and recommendations, these panels are able to shape the public debate on global food system reform.

<footnote>effective by: defining and providing opportunities for processes which encompass interrelations between science and policy in a range of domains; assigning roles and responsibilities to scientists, policy-makers and other relevant stake- and knowledge-holders within these processes; and guiding and coordinating their interactions” (UNEP 2017).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶The HLPE/CFS, for example, exclusively responds to CFS requests. Its reports are not approved by governments, a fact that has both positive and negative consequences, but are the basis for an intergovernmental negotiation process. The level of financial resources differs from one panel to another, as does their political anchorage in UN institutions.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷For example, the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition “works with international, multi-sector stakeholders, to help governments in low- and middle-income countries develop evidence-based policies that make high-quality diets safe, affordable and accessible”; the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) “is an independent panel of experts with a mission to promote transition to sustainable food systems around the world”; and the EAT Forum is “dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships.”</footnote>
# 6 Mechanisms at Play and Emerging Issues in These Interfaces

On the whole, in recent history, science has strongly shaped the way challenges are perceived and understood. This is true in many domains (climate, environment, biodiversity, and more), but particularly true in the food system domain. More specifically, science has informed the process of policymaking through various formal channels, including collective expertise, particularly consultation and scientific evaluation mechanisms instituted through legal formulation processes. Informal channels, such as the media and civil society advocacy campaigns, have also played a role when they convey solid scientific diagnostics and results.

For example, research by several scientific teams showed the importance of interventions in domains other than nutrition in reducing the burden of malnutrition. Specifically, the idea of nutrition-sensitive agriculture, promoted by Ruel in the journal *Lancet*, has been very influential in forming consensus views on this topic. Based on a growing quantity of published scientific evidence, many development agencies, together with governments and NGOs, launched new “nutrition-sensitive agriculture” initiatives and redesigned their logical frameworks to take nutrition outcomes into account. In follow-up, researchers tracked these initiatives, documented their outcomes—positive and negative—and raised new questions (Ruel et al. 2018). Outstanding discoveries on the linkage between nutrition and health, intestinal microbiota, the impact of agriculture on biodiversity and soil and water health, the carbon footprint of food, and the quantity of food waste and loss are other examples of the way scientific results drastically change public awareness and, therefore, the orientation of policies.

Yet, there is a gap between the rigorous scientific process of producing evidence on a specific question on the one hand and the complex process of policymaking on the other hand, the latter of which must balance empirical information and scientific evidence with management of trade-offs, political agendas, and societal acceptability (Gluckmann 2016). This points to the limitations of the notion of “evidence”<fnref n="8" /> in policymaking (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2004; Saltelli and Giampietro 2017); evidence is not independent of power balances (Loconto et al. 2019). Moreover, there is sometimes confusion between evidence and certainty that can affect policymaking; evidence that scientists perceive to be most convincing is often the most complex and the least easily digested by policymakers. There is also a potential for bias in the choice of evidence to legitimize a specific policy ex post, with possible political manipulation of the research (Soussana et al. 2021). Hence, it is important to appraise the evidence, including its limitations, using guidelines and procedures to assess quality in terms of credibility and legitimacy (for example, in the health domain, WHO guidelines).

<footnote n="8">⁸With regard to health, Lomas et al. (2005) define evidence as “findings from research and other knowledge that may serve as a useful basis for decision-making in public health and health care.” This definition was adopted by The Health Evidence Network (EVIDENT).</footnote>
Many analyses show the extent to which scientific evidence is framed by social and political debates. For example, the reform of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy in the 1990s was fueled by “economic” models from INRA.<fnref n="9" /> These “scientific models” were attractive because they also converged with other stakeholders' interests (Fouilleux 2000, 2004).

As mentioned above, policymakers and scientists are not the only players. Many other stakeholders play an explicit or implicit, visible or invisible role in science—policy interfaces (OECD 2021a). Sometimes, the concept of governance, when it involves other stakeholders (such as public—private partnerships or voluntary guidelines), becomes so broad that its legitimacy can be questioned in view of the potential for a strong imbalance in the actors' powers, privatization of public goods, and betrayal of the common good. Strengthening civil society involvement in food system governance is presented by some as part of the solution (IPES-Food 2021), and its absence as a step backwards (Canfield et al. 2021). However, the ambiguity of these relations can frustrate both scientists and policymakers and highlights the need to build capacities on both sides.

# 7 Asymmetries Within and Among Countries in Terms of Scientific Capacity

Applied scientific research is context-specific, and some developing countries are lacking the scientific capacity to tackle their most burning challenges (for example, climate or SDG roadmaps, UNFSS dialogues) (Beintema and Stads 2017). These countries often rely on knowledge generated elsewhere, generally in wealthier countries. Sharing such knowledge is certainly advantageous when it is done through respectful, inclusive, and balanced partnerships, but there are obvious risks to relying heavily on international research to build national policies (Soussana et al. 2021). Scientific capacity is an essential driver of development (US NSTC 1999; CIRAD 2017); dependence on science produced elsewhere decreases a country's sovereignty over its own transformation and can affect the framing of national challenges, the design of development and transformation pathways and, ultimately, the relevance of solutions and citizen adherence to policies.

In food systems, there will be a range of science providers driven by different interests and funding mechanisms; this could be a source of strong asymmetries due to power relationships. A critical challenge for governments is to coordinate and guide this diverse innovation system toward their respective country's agreed-upon strategies and plans. Building such strategies and plans is just the first step; maintaining coherence over the years may be a challenge, as changes in political leadership bring different visions.

<footnote n="9">⁹Institut national de la recherche agronomique (French public research institute).</footnote>
3. Recommendations to go beyond conventional roles

These recommendations draw heavily from the synthesis of the February 2021 high-level science—policy event (Hainzelin et al. 2021). Enhancing the powerful leverage of science—policy interfaces requires engagement from both sides and a balance of power in their interactions.

8 Science Should Move Beyond Sounding Alarms and Supplying Knowledge

Science is and will be of foremost importance in supporting the sustainable trans-
formation of food systems. Scientific institutions have the mandate to produce
certified knowledge, using rigorous methods backed by solid theories. Yet, the
role of science is far greater than simply providing evidence or transferring knowl-
edge that will help in designing solutions, as scientists are well placed to convene
and collaborate with key food system actors, especially managers, political actors,
and policymakers, to jointly build plausible change scenarios based on their different
bodies of knowledge. Scientists cannot pose as an external arbiter to decide what
should or should not be done, but they should reinforce their role as knowledge
brokers.<fnref n="10" />

When considering a specific food system in a specific territory, scientific institu-
tions should address solution-oriented research questions in collaboration with other
actors based on a common vision of the needed changes. This engagement should
build the capacity to mainstream knowledge and solutions into a wider picture of
territorial development, with links to different relevant sectors, such as health,
education and infrastructure (Caron et al. 2017). The diversity and complexity of
interconnected pathways and dynamics of change in food systems also imply an
epistemic rupture in the way most research is doing its business; rather than
prescribing and transferring turnkey packages, researchers should be designing,
constantly learning, contributing expertise, promoting collective intelligence, and
brokering coalitions of change.

Science is expected to help in exploring and designing plausible futures, including desirable and undesired disruptions, using foresight tools such as modeling and scenario building. To anticipate and facilitate responses to shocks, monitoring and early warning systems should be put in place that quickly assess vulnerabilities across several food system dimensions and proactively dialogue with decision-makers. When change pathways are integrated at higher scales—national, continental, or

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Knowledge brokers are “organizations or individuals who serve to facilitate interactions between researchers and policymakers, supporting both groups to better understand the goals and professional culture of the other, creating better links and partnerships, and ultimately leading to improved evidence for informed policymaking” (Knight and Lyall 2013). Knowledge brokers also support researchers by translating and adapting findings to the local context (Norton et al. 2016).</footnote>
global—common constraints or challenges appear to be in the way of desirable transformation. Science must also be instrumental at these scales and contribute to transformation by facilitating agreement on a shared vision of desired changes and formulation of explicit pathways to achieve them. This means understanding the change processes (Béné et al. 2020), their patterns, power dynamics, consequences, and obstacles, and their impacts on the management of shock responses and risk and uncertainty. This includes offering science-based insights into trade-offs across stakeholders, sectors, spatial levels, and timeframes, and identifying lock-ins that create path dependencies, including the issue of why scientific evidence is not being used. Science should also be able to provide a spatiotemporal perspective of these trade-offs that integrates views from across the natural, technical, and social sciences.

## 9 Policy Should Make Effective Use of Knowledge for Decision-Making

As most food system innovation is context-specific and takes place within complex environments, action-oriented knowledge transfer is not a straightforward linear process. Innovation must be specifically tailored to local contexts for effective brokerage and collaboration among multiple stakeholders. Consequently, it is essential that scientists participate in multisectoral transformation arrangements, for example, commissions involving key actors—policymakers, civil society, and the private sector—and recommend policy actions through transparent, solution-based deliberative dialogue processes.

Given overlapping challenges and sometimes contradictory expectations, political actors and policymakers should not expect single solutions that meet all their criteria. They should strive to benefit from scientists’ contributions by collaborating with the science community to ensure relevant and timely research. Novel incentives and institutional mechanisms should be explored to stimulate and strengthen dialogue and action toward positive outcomes in complex contexts. These mechanisms should be conducive to coordinated engagement of science and policy actors, while remaining open to a range of stakeholders throughout the process.

Policymakers should support the decision-making process by putting forward explicit demands for the science community to identify obstacles to food system transformation, to develop technological, institutional and policy innovations that will promote the desired transformation, and to design progress metrics that account for the complexity of this transformation, along with the trade-offs and impacts. This will help build the dialogue process across scientific disciplines, as well as between scientists and policymakers, and identify different possible, plausible and tailored transformative pathways in a long timeframe that buffers possible shifts arising from any change in political leadership.
This mutual engagement also implies capacity-building for policymakers to gain further insight into complex science-based solutions, the trade-offs, the extent of uncertainty, and the nature of scientific evidence. Scientists must also acknowledge the political dimension of scientific research and have a clearer understanding of the policymaking process, as well as the constraints of political timeframes, divergent interests, and power asymmetries.

Enhanced science–policy interfaces founded on these principles could better ensure that knowledge—as a public good—is a keystone of food system transformation that contributes to sustainable development.

## 10 “Business as Un-Usual” to Boost Food System Transformation

There is no single science–policy interface, but many, at different scales, for different functions, addressing different challenges. These interfaces need to be strengthened, connected, and streamlined to ensure the consistency of food system transformation. Working with existing interfaces, rather than creating new ones, is likely the best way forward.

To meet the challenges, scientists and policymakers will have to interact in new ways: designing together, rather than transferring and applying knowledge, and fostering dialogues, co-learning, and convergence, rather than confrontation and polarization. This “business as un-usual” would rely specifically on four pillars:

* Generating actionable knowledge, data, and metrics in a collaborative way to move beyond obstacles and to address trade-offs and barriers to change, including power asymmetries, path dependency, conflicts of interest, and risk and uncertainty.

* Articulating models, knowledge and place-based innovation to design, implement and assess specific transformative pathways: this requires specific arrangements, dialogues and approaches, including scientific approaches.

* Connecting expertise mechanisms to address multisectoral and multiscale processes toward sustainable development; at the international level, the joint mobilization of IPCC, IPBES, and HLPE/CFS is necessary to address the interconnected challenges of climate, environment and food systems.

* Strengthening scientific cooperation through major challenge-oriented alliances and programs, spanning public and private researchers that address priorities for food system transformation.

Without effective science–policy interfaces, transformation is hampered at a time when urgent action is crucial to design and implement healthy, equitable and sustainable food systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that a tailorable science–policy interface can be beneficial. The key challenge today is to develop effective mechanisms for actively connecting scientific knowledge with policy
actions through deliberative dialogue. Examples of effective interfaces are reason for optimism. But new thinking and flexible funding models, at national and global levels, are also required to enable science to respond to short-term policy needs without diverting funds from longer-term research. Strengthening scientific capacity is a critical longer-term objective requiring commitment from national governments, as well as more strategic and coordinated approaches from the global scientific community, especially in view of cross-country imbalances in scientific capacity.

Now is the time to learn from and make effective use of these interfaces, while connecting them, boosting their impact, and innovating to build a desirable future. Science—policy interfaces can play a decisive role if they are able to dovetail divergent views and overcome polarized debates and sectoral fragmentation. They must also help us to look ahead and to bridge local and global processes and actions.

## References

* Andrée P, Clark J, Levkoe C, Lowwitt K (eds) (2019) Civil society and social movements in food system governance, Routledge studies in food, society and the environment, Taylor & Francis, 216 p

* Beintema N, Stads G-J (2017) A comprehensive overview of investments and human resource capacity in African agricultural research. IFPRI. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utilsex/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/131191/filename/131402.pdf

* Beintema N, Nin Pratt A, Stads G-J (2020) ASTI global update 2020. ASTI Program Note, International Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

* Béné C, Fanzo J, Prager SD, Achicanoy HA, Mapes BR, Alvarez Toro P et al (2020) Global drivers of food system (un)sustainability: a multi-country correlation analysis. PLoS One 15(4): e0231071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231071

* Canfield M, Anderson MD, McMichael P (2021) UN food systems summit 2021: dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front Sustain Food Syst 5:103

* Caron P, Valette É, Wassenaar T, Coppens DE, Papazian V (2017) Living territories to transform the world. Editions Quae, 274 pp

* Chabasson L, Rankovic A, Bonnel A (2016) Fonder les politiques publiques sur les sciences et la connaissance. Regards sur la terre. Iddri/AFD

* CIRAD (2017) CIRAD strategic vision and ambition 2018–2028. https://collaboratif.cirad.fr/alfresco/s/d/workspace/SpacesStore/42149ae0-af9f-4432-981b-2d8574acd0ed/2018-2028%20Strategic%20vision.pdf

* Committee on the world Food Security (CFS) (2018) Evaluation – implementation report. CFS_BurAG_2018_07_23_03b_Evaluation_Implementation_Report.pdf (fao.org)

* Fouilleux E (2000) Entre Production et institutionnalisation des idées, La réforme de la Politique Agricole Commune. Revue française de science politique 50:277–305

* Fouilleux E (2004) CAP reforms and multilateral trade negotiations: another view on discourse efficiency. West Eur Polit 27(March (2)):235–255

* Gitz V, Meybeck A (2011) The establishment of the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition (HLPE). Shared, independent and comprehensive knowledge for international policy coherence in food security and nutrition. hal-00866427. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis

* Gluckmann P (2016) The science-policy interface. Science 353:6303

* Graff G, Pardey P (2020) Inventions and patenting in Africa: empirical trends from 1970 to 2010. J World Intellect Prop 23:40–64
Hainzinel E, Caron P, Echeverria R, Harding A, Enriquez M, Broin M (2021) Bonding science and policy to accelerate food systems transformation. Synthesis and recommendations. High level event Science policy February 4th 2021. https://www.agropolis.org/pdf/news/recommendation-february-4.pdf

IPES-Food & ETC Group (2021) A long food movement: transforming food systems by 2045. www.ipes-food.org/pages/LongFoodMovement

Knight C, Lyall C (2013) Knowledge brokers the role of intermediaries in producing research impact: the role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evid Policy 9(3):309–316

Laforge JL, Anderson CR, McLachlan SM (2016) Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating. Agric Hum Values 34: 663–681

Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press

Loconto A, Desquilbet M, Moreau T, Couvet D, Dorin B (2019) The land sparing – land sharing controversy: tracing the politics of knowledge. Land Use Policy (Elsevier) 2019:96pp. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014

Lomas J, Culyer A, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S (2005) Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Final report. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 44 p

Merton RK (1942) The normative structure of science. In: Storer NW (ed) The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–278

Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Norton TC, Howell C, Reynolds C (2016) Exploratory study of the role of knowledge brokers in translating knowledge to action following global maternal and newborn health technical meetings. Public Health 140:235–243

OECD (2021a) Making better policies for food systems. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en

OECD (2021b) OECD reviews of innovation policy. Accessed at https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oecd-reviews-of-innovation-policy.htm on April 21, 2021

Pardey P, Chan-Kang C, Beddow J, Dehmer S (2016) Shifting ground: food and agricultural R&D spending worldwide, 1960–2011. International Science and Technology Practice and Policy (InStePP) Center at the University of Minnesota

Resnick D, Haggblade S, Babu S, Hendriks SL, Mather D (2018) The kaleidoscope model of policy change: applications to food security policy in Zambia. World Dev 109(2018):101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.004

Ruel MT, Quisumbing AR, Balagamwala M (2018) Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: what have we learned so far?. Glob Food Sec 17:128–153

Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A, Harvey G, Kitson A, McCormack B (2004) What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? J Adv Nurs 47:81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03068.x

Saltelli A, Giampietro M (2017) What is wrong with evidence-based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures 91(2017):62–71

Soussana J-F, Weill C, Caron P, Chotte JL, Joly P-B, Aggarwal P, Whitmee S (2021) International science foresight workshop: global challenges and research gaps. The Royaumont process. INRAE (France), 25 p. https://doi.org/10.15454/m3k7-j656

UNESCO (2018) Recommendation on science and scientific researchers. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2017) Strengthening the science-policy Interface: a gap analysis. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, 125 p

US NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) (1999) Annual report. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/nstc99annualrpt_0.pdf

Van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 39(7):807–826

Von Braun J (2018) Global institutions: governance reform for food, nutrition, and agriculture. IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /></figure>
# The Transition Steps Needed to Transform Our Food Systems

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Patrick Webb, Derek J. Flynn, Niamh M. Kelly, and Sandy M. Thomas

## 1 Introduction

The United Nations (UN) Food Systems Summit and N4G meetings in 2021 reflect a growing international recognition that the policies that fed the world in the twentieth century are no longer fit for purpose. Urgent reform is essential to achieve the goal of universally accessible and affordable healthy diets delivered by food systems that are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.

On behalf of the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition:

John Beddington – Former UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Senior Adviser to the Oxford Martin

School and Professor of Natural Resource Management at Oxford University

Agnes Kalibata – President, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

Akinwumi Adesina – President of the African Development Bank

Celso Moretti – President, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)

Emmy Simmons – Senior Adviser, Non-resident, to the Center for Strategic and International

Studies Global Food Security Project

Rachel Kyte – Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University

Rhoda Peace Tumusiime – Former Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture, African

Union Commission

Tom Arnold – Former Director-General, Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA)

Shenggen Fan – Chair Professor of China Agricultural University

K. Srinath Reddy – President, Public Health Foundation of India

Qu Dongyu – Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO)

P. Webb (✉)

Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

Global Panel, London, UK

e-mail: Patrick.Webb@tufts.edu

D. J. Flynn · N. M. Kelly · S. M. Thomas

Global Panel, London, UK
Today’s food systems are asked to nourish the world’s growing population in ways that do no harm to either human or planetary health. However, the growing problems facing food systems now amount to a twofold crisis. First, global progress in addressing malnutrition in all its forms (including undernutrition, obesity and micronutrient deficiencies) and reducing diet-related diseases has stalled. Food systems are failing to provide affordable healthy diets for three billion people (FAO, IFAD, UNICED, WFP W 2020). This affects their health, the mental and physical development of children, and the earning potential of those children throughout their lives. Those affected risk being locked into lifelong inequality. Second, food systems are in a spiral of decline with environmental systems (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020a): they are a major cause of worsening degradation of soil, water and air quality, biodiversity loss and climate change. Moreover, although food systems have generally responded to the challenges posed by COVID-19, the pandemic has highlighted just how fragile and precarious the world’s food systems have become.

Without decisive action, the situation is set to worsen in the future due to a multitude of factors: population growth and climate change, increasing competition for land, water and other natural resources, and emerging diseases, conflict and economic volatility. The stakes could not be higher, not just for the health of the world's population and the planet, but also for the delivery of most of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as those relating to hunger and nutrition, growth, equality, education, wellbeing, and sustainable cities and communities (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2017a).

Minor adjustments on the margins of today’s food systems will be inadequate. All stakeholders involved in food systems, including government policymakers, donors, businesses, non-governmental organisations, and civil society, should be encouraged to adopt a much more radical approach. They need to rethink the ways in which food systems are currently managed, governed and used, and at the most fundamental level, they must decide what food systems need to deliver and how the performance of those systems is assessed. Reshaping food systems to respond simultaneously to nutritional, health, economic, and environmental issues presents considerable challenges, but also great opportunities for actions that would yield considerable benefits to countries (see Box 1).

However, it is not enough merely to have a vision for future transformed food systems. Policymakers need to chart a way forward to achieve them through a practical and pragmatic plan for the specific transition steps<fnref n="1" /> that need to be taken, and how they would be funded, implemented, and managed. Developing such a plan, and implementing it effectively, presents massive challenges that must cut through the complexity of food systems and competing priorities. It will need to navigate a path through powerful forces and vested interests that might favour the

<footnote n="1">¹In this chapter, the term ‘transition’ refers to the process of changing from one state of a food system to another, and it typically involves a number of specific ‘transition steps.’ A ‘transformed’ food system refers to the end state of the transition process.</footnote>
status quo and impede policy change. It must also be affordable at a time when countries are still grappling with the economic catastrophe of COVID-19. The transition needs to be viewed with realism, rather than being an abstract ideal. Against this background, the following sections of this chapter set out the steps of the transition process that need to be taken on the road to a fundamental transformation of food systems.

## 1.1 What the Transition Process Needs to Achieve

A series of steps must be urgently planned, discussed, financed, and enacted to allow the world's food systems to transition from their current sub-optimal state to one in which they fully support the dietary patterns needed to maximise human and planetary health. The following are five key outcomes that broadly map onto the original UN Food Systems Summit Action Tracks and could usefully be considered within the Summit's deliberations:

* Food systems need to deliver universal access to healthy diets. This means moving beyond merely addressing hunger to addressing all forms of malnutrition, in part, by ensuring improved diets for all. Nonetheless, there is a global shortfall in the production of the range of nutrient-rich foods required to achieve this. For example, only 34% of fruits and vegetables needed for everyone to access a healthy diet are being produced (Dias et al. 2018). Healthy diets are currently also unaffordable for three billion people worldwide.

* Consumer demand needs to be harnessed as a significant driver of change. Consumers must be able to make informed choices and be encouraged to select nutrient-rich food options, and to play their part in reducing waste. The latter is especially important in view of projected increases in the global population, combined with increasing stresses in environmental systems essential for food production such as land, soils and water.

* Food systems must become fully environmentally sustainable, thereby operating within planetary boundaries. This is one of the three 'pillars' of the SDGs, and it is essential for both the future health of the planet and the future viability of food systems to nourish the world. Policymakers need to adopt a perspective that considers the environmental footprint of all parts of food systems, from farm to fork. This perspective needs to encompass greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the effect of food systems on biodiversity loss, changing land use and deforestation, water use, and more. Substantial reduction in losses throughout the food chain, of foods and the nutrients that they contain, needs to be a priority.

* The transition needs to be a 'just' rural and urban process, so that it reduces inequality and inequities of all kinds, rather than increasing them. No one must be left behind.

* The transition needs to deliver transformed food systems capable of operating at two speeds, i.e., responding to immediate needs and short-term shocks, but also
able to address the long-term restructuring of food systems needed to respond to climate change, population growth, and urbanisation. Governments have been too slow to act on climate change and biodiversity loss, despite warnings over many years. More recently, COVID-19 has exposed the profound fragility of food systems and their potential to exacerbate instability and conflict, for example, through food riots.

**Box 1: The Potential Benefits of Transformed Food Systems**

Sustainable<fnref n="2" /> healthy diets that are accessible and affordable for all would help to drive much-needed progress across most of the SDGs. Potential benefits include:

* Elimination of a major cause of inequality for the three billion people today who cannot access a healthy diet (Bommer et al. 2018; IPBES 2019).

* A substantial reduction in levels of stunting, which, in 2019, affected 144 million children under five, and wasting, which affects 47 million pre-school children. This would lead to benefits in terms of cognitive development and educational attainment for children, and a more productive workforce.

* A substantial reduction in the prevalence of diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Without action, health costs linked to mortality and the health impacts of NCDs could reach US$2.5 trillion per year globally by 2030 (Bommer et al. 2018).

* A reduction of 41–74% in food system greenhouse gas emissions, while boosting resilience to climate shocks. This would also greatly contribute to addressing biodiversity loss. Agriculture is the largest contributor to the latter – the global annual loss of pollinating insects alone is estimated to cost US$235–577 billion (IPBES 2019).

* A substantial reduction in the economic drag presented by inadequate nutrition, which ranges from 2% to 3% of GDP in some countries and up to 11% of GDP in Africa and Asia each year. This would engender progress on poverty reduction, education and equality (The World Bank and Nutrition 2019).

<footnote n="2">²In this chapter, the term “sustainable” in “sustainable, healthy diets” or “sustainable food systems” refers to environmental sustainability. It is used if the contribution of a place’s food system (which delivers locally produced, but also imported and marketed, foods) can be continued without undermining the ability of the natural environment to function in the long term, i.e., the system does not drive biodiversity loss, pollution, soil degradation, or climate change. It is acknowledged that other dimensions of sustainability are also important, notably, economic and social sustainability, although detailed consideration of these is beyond the scope of this chapter.</footnote>
## 2 Planning the Transition Steps

Food systems are complex, dynamic, and comprise many different interacting subsystems, but food system policies often fail to recognise this. Too often, a narrow approach is adopted that focuses on specific parts of the food system; for example, when setting production targets for specific food commodities. The reality is that the diverse parts of food systems are in constant flux, with the many parts influencing each other in a web of relationships. Production, trade, food prices and consumer demand are notable examples. Policymakers need to think in terms of food systems as a whole and as interacting dynamic systems, rather than individual isolated components in equilibrium.

The choice of initial transition steps should be informed by a comprehensive analysis of existing policies and private sector investments, to help identify priority outcomes (defined in holistic human and planetary dimensions) and barriers to change. A food system assessment of all public funding and institutional mandates can distinguish those that could be repurposed to help cover the costs of transition phase actions. Similarly, a review of existing food system functions, challenges and benefits would determine where best to target actions to increase the availability of nutrient-rich foods in particular, and to improve the efficiency of food value chains overall.

The complexity of food systems presents a challenge for policymakers trying to decide the first steps of the transition process. This is because of the myriad possible actions, policies and interventions. The following subsections outline how the necessary choices could be navigated.

### 2.1 New Priorities and Principles to Guide Transition Choices

New metrics of ‘success’ in the process of food system transition are needed to frame and monitor policy decisions. For example, the failure to properly account for the value of human health and the natural environment in policy decisions related to food systems is both a market failure and a widespread institutional failure. Unless addressed at the outset, this fundamental flaw will continue to distort or impede progress in food system transition.

More generally, decisions involved in planning the transition of food systems will require a new approach that should adhere to the following principles: at every stage of the transition, ensure that inequality does not increase, and that the poor are able to access and afford healthy diets; avoid closing off options for the future; invest in strengthening institutions and capacity-building; ensure transparency to engender trust and ‘buy-in’; base decisions on evidence and transparent expectations; and establish feedback mechanisms for adjustment. This last point is particularly relevant to actions that may be under-explored in some contexts. Limited trials of different
options with wide societal engagement and transparency of intent will help to start the transition process, and inform subsequent wider rollouts.

A priority should be to ensure a ‘just’ transition in which all classes of society benefit, and in which inequality at all scales (international, national, and local) is reduced rather than increased. This is important, since low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are likely to be least able to resource the transition of their food systems, and the poor in any country will be inadequately placed to cope with fluctuations in food prices that might occur during the process. Coordination among high-income countries (HICs), LMICs and the donor community will be needed to support transition agendas.

Policy decisions across government also need to be aligned with national food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). FBDGs are now available in roughly 100 countries across the world and are designed to inform consumer choice (FAO n.d.). However, much greater use should be made of them to inform policy decisions in all relevant areas of government, from trade to infrastructure development, health and the environment. Without this common approach, different parts of government risk pulling in different directions, rather than working together towards a common agenda of food system transition. FBDGs also need to be reassessed and updated to reflect the latest science, and to embody issues of sustainability, as well as dietary health.

## 2.2 Placing Poor and Marginalised People at the Heart of the Transition

The transition of food systems has the potential to address societal inequalities in several ways. By ensuring access to diets that are affordable, healthy and sustainable, it has immediate benefit for the three billion who cannot afford healthy diets today (FAO, IFAD, UNICED, WFP W 2020). At a stroke, access to healthy diets for pregnant women and children will address the lifetime inequalities related to health and mental development that malnutrition can cause. Consequential increases in productivity and lifetime earnings would further help to lift families out of poverty, thereby helping to open up wider opportunities.

However, a key challenge for policymakers is to ensure that the transition reduces inequality rather than increasing it. At the country level, the latter is a real threat: LMICs are likely to be less able to resource the necessary transition steps, and thus they risk falling further behind HICs. For individual families, the poorest will be least able to afford nutrient-rich food alternatives if they are more expensive, and less able to cope with fluctuations in food prices that might occur as food systems change. The effects of the transition of jobs and livelihoods needs to be managed particularly carefully, recognising the vital importance of the food sector as a major source of employment for the poor across the world.
If the transition of food systems is to reduce inequality, then policymakers must commit to specific actions at both the international and national levels:

* Disruption to trade in general, and through protectionism in particular, must be avoided. Trade is a vital tool for minimising food prices and maintaining food security, particularly at times of stress and price volatility.

* Governments need to promote growth that is specifically inclusive and pro-poor. This is a vital component in a strategy to address affordability.

* Donors need to specifically focus their attention on protecting the poor from price fluctuations that may occur during the transition.

Planning the transition of their food systems is likely to be a particular challenge for those LMICs that are heavily resource-constrained. It is suggested that governments in LMICs should give particular consideration to the following:

* Repurposing existing expenditure across government, recognising that sustainable healthy diets can contribute to multiple policy agendas, including health, economic growth and education.

* Giving particular focus to actions that are, to first order, cost neutral; for example, rebalancing production (terrestrial and aquatic food systems of all kinds) subsidies and research, taxes and regulation. Influencing consumer dietary choices is potentially low cost, but has considerable potential to drive change throughout food systems.

* Leveraging the considerable resources of the private sector by forging a partnership to work together on a common agenda.

* Focusing attention on actions that simultaneously produce multiple wins.

* Using reviews to prioritise where to focus actions within food systems, and using the best science, evidence, and modelling to help choose the most cost-effective actions.

## 2.3 Tackling Trade-Offs and Compromises Head On

The need to resolve competing policy and investment priorities operates at many scales and contexts. It is a daily reality in governments when resources are constrained and actions need to be prioritised, in private companies when making investment choices regarding product portfolios or retail strategies, and in households when making day-to-day food-purchase choices (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020b; Webb 2010; Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2017b).

Policymakers seeking to transition food systems need to think through how to navigate difficult trade-offs that may lie entirely within the food system, but equally may involve wider areas of policy. Examples include how to balance resource expenditure among fostering education, stimulating economic growth, and investing specifically in food systems, how to allocate scarce resources for addressing different
forms of malnutrition that may affect a population simultaneously, including under-nutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, or overweight and obesity, how to strike a balance between investing in agriculture and fisheries versus other sectors in rural communities, and how to balance avoiding coronavirus-led debt default in the short-term with investing in food system transition to achieve longer-term health and economic benefits.

Trade-offs may usefully be approached through mapping out existing policies in relation to new goals and likely trade-offs, developing a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of alternative actions, transparently defining who pays and benefits from alternative strategies, taking a longer-term perspective, and ensuring affordability as a priority (FAO, IFAD, UNICED, WFP W 2020; Herforth et al. 2020).

## 2.4 Ensuring That the Transition Process Is Appropriately Resourced

The transition of food systems will inevitably incur costs before the benefits can be realised. These costs will likely manifest in all domains of the system, from production through to trade, food processing, retail, and consumption. It is therefore necessary that the distribution and impacts of these costs are identified, understood, and managed effectively. Put simply, it is essential to have clarity from the outset about how the transition steps would be resourced. This will be doubly important, not only to ensure that reform can move beyond political aspiration, but also so that the transition does not further widen the gap between HICs and LMICs. Much can be achieved by repurposing (see Sect. 4) or refocusing existing resources (for example, shifting subsidies and realigning taxes and incentives), and through negotiating more equitable trade agreements. Identifying actions that produce multiple benefits (win-wins) may also help. However, the following non-governmental actions also need to be considered:

* **Incentivise the private sector to realign its resources to help support national agendas of delivering healthier diets in a sustainable manner.** The public sector cannot deliver transformed food systems on its own; rather, it needs to work in partnership with the private sector. However, many commercial actors too often act in ways that are not conducive to health or to the sustainability of food systems. This is incompatible with the necessary transition agenda and needs to change. It is important for governments to incentivise businesses to make a much wider range of nutrient-rich foods affordable to the entirety of ‘bottom of the pyramid’ families. More generally, a comprehensive framework for food industry engagement needs to be established.

* **Establish a dedicated global financing facility for food system transition.** Such a facility would mobilise multilateral resources to support and incentivise
increased allocations of domestic resources towards making food systems more resilient and diets both more sustainable and healthier. A particular priority for such a facility would be to assist LMICs in their transition, recognising the severe financial constraints in which many operate. It also has the potential to catalyse reform where there is a mismatch between the actors who need to resource change and those who stand to benefit.

* **Realign donor policies towards supporting actions that promote the achievement of both human health and planetary goals.** A particular priority should be the protection of the poor during the transition by refocusing social protection policies so that they will be able to cope with fluctuations in the availability and price of foods that may occur during this time.

## 3 Incentivising and Supporting Actions

Given the diverse benefits that would result from achieving sustainable, healthy diets for all, the limited actions taken by countries across the world in recent decades (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020a) represent a huge missed opportunity. The reasons for this are many and varied, but include insufficient policy focus by governments on improving diet quality and nutrient-rich foods (as opposed to the provision of staples).

A further issue concerns the private sector. Despite playing a major role in feeding the world, the private sector too often develops and promotes foods that are not conducive to healthy diets, or which rely on food production systems that over-exploit natural resources. The benefits mainly accrue to private sector stakeholders, while the costs (population-wide ill health, ecological degradation, etc.) are mainly borne by the public sector and wider society. This mismatch has impeded progress in the past and must be addressed as part of the transition.

Many factors also affect the pace of change. Global food systems involve powerful business interests with considerable investment in the status quo: revenues of the global food system are estimated to reach US$8 trillion in 2021 (Statista 2020; Van Nieuwkoop 2019). The implementation of policy change may also be constrained by limited resources, particularly in LMICs, and especially in a post-COVID-19 world. Major shifts in policy may incur political risks, and decision-makers typically assign more weight to these compared with the risks associated with maintaining the status quo (The World Bank and Nutrition 2019). Moreover, at the level of the consumer, dietary choices may be heavily conditioned by evolving cultural or religious norms (Monterrosa et al. 2020; Alonso et al. 2021). However, three systemic issues stand out within the policy environment. Addressing these at the outset of the transition is essential.
## 3.1 The Misalignment Between the Complexity and Interconnectedness of Food and Environmental Systems, and How They Are Managed Today

Policy actions on food, health, agriculture and fisheries, and climate are typically managed in isolation, in an organisational approach that is inherently unsuited to managing complex food systems. The need for ‘joined up’ policy is a cliché, but remains widely relevant. This important issue can be addressed through a combination of measures: initiating training and sensitisation of policy leads in all relevant sectors to the urgency of the transition, encouraging leadership at the highest levels of government, convincing relevant policymakers across government of the critical importance of sustainable, healthy diets to their respective policy agendas, embedding these objectives into their own plans and strategies so that all parts of government drive change within a common transition agenda, and establishing targets for actions that improve food system functions in ways that deliver multiple benefits simultaneously.

## 3.2 Inadequacies in Science and Evidence for Policy Development

Trusted, high-quality science and evidence are essential to give policymakers the confidence to make the bold decisions that are required. There is a need to address major gaps in the evidence base, particularly in LMICs, where evidence of ‘what works’ is often limited, establish a common science base that is recognised as independent, widely trusted, and freely available to all countries, and develop consensus around contentious areas of policy.

The idea for creation of an IPCC-like organisation for sustainable food systems (an ‘International Panel for Food System Science, (IPFSS)) has been mooted in recent years and offers one way to help deliver the necessary improvements. This idea is now gathering support from major stakeholders.

An important role of the IPFSS would be to engender trust in the science and evidence in two distinct communities. In the case of policymakers, it would engender confidence and provide support in justifying difficult or controversial decisions. However, trust in the underlying science is equally critical for citizens who can exert considerable influence throughout the food system through their individual and collective food choices (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020a). The vast amounts of misinformation circulating on the internet and social media concerning climate change, and now vaccinations, collectively illustrate how false information can dangerously mislead consumers.
## 3.3 Metrics for Monitoring, Tracking, and Adjusting the Transition Process

Effectively measuring what policymakers and businesses manage is key to identifying what works and what is most cost-effective, as well as for supporting transparency and accountability (The World Bank 2021). As such, the transition steps in food system reform must be carefully based on appropriate evidence where it is available (International Food Policy Research Institute 2021), and should promote making evidence available where it is not (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020a). For example, it remains difficult to compare diets (what people actually eat) across geographies and over time. This gap in appropriate measurement and monitoring continues to impair the prospect of reaching a global consensus on what elements should be included to define healthy or high-quality diets, and how to ensure the planetary sustainability of the food systems that underpin them.

What is urgently needed is open-access portals for data not just on diets, but on all elements of food system functions, including information access, market prices, and the nature and quality of food environments, all of which are needed in forms that can be effectively linked with global trade and climate change models to better inform policy choices.

# 4 Who Needs to Act: Priorities for Transitioning Food Systems to Protect Human and Planetary Health

The transition of food systems requires global leadership with a long-term focus and the delivery of a coherent set of commitments and actions that place both people's and the planet's health at the centre. For the next decade, the structure of the SDGs will help to provide a coherent framework for action. Global leadership, such as that expected to emerge more fully from the UN Food Systems Summit, will help to provide the continuity needed, as well as mechanisms for periodic reassessment and reorientation.

However, global leadership must be supplemented with and supported by national, regional, and local level initiatives that bring together public, private, and civil society actors around the priorities that are most urgent, feasible and essential for food system transformation. The Global Panel's recent Foresight report sets out detailed recommendations for different classes of stakeholder, and different parts of the food system, recognising that such actions will usually need to be tailored to individual circumstances. However, the following priorities are generally applicable:
## International

1. Leaders and decision-makers should capitalise upon upcoming global fora to agree to new commitments for making food systems more resilient and diets that are healthy and sustainable. Both the Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit and the UN Food Systems Summit are important opportunities to explore the creation of a dedicated global financing facility for food system transformation and secure national endorsements for change, including much improved capacity for research and evidence to better support policy decisions. A new vision for sustainable food systems delivering healthy diets for all must be supported through the best science and evidence of what works, as informed by practical evidence.

2. Policymakers must build on existing global development targets (such as the SDGs and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change) so that they embody the goal of sustainable, healthy diets for everyone as a shared objective. These targets need to recognise the central importance of sustainable, healthy diets as a key enabler for progress on diverse agendas; for example, those related to inequality, economic growth, climate change, environmental degradation, and livelihoods and job creation.

## Governments

3. Food systems and the policies that govern them need to be people-centred. This means ensuring that healthy diets are available to all people irrespective of class, religion, gender and age. It means recognising the vital role that food systems play in providing livelihoods for countless millions, particularly for poor and marginalised groups. Moreover, it means ensuring that policymakers understand and recognise the central importance of healthy diets for physical and mental development, as a foundation for health, prosperity and wellbeing.

4. Policymakers in relevant government departments must address planetary and dietary challenges simultaneously, because they are fundamentally interlinked. The approach to date, in which these issues were tackled piecemeal and in silos, simply will not work.

5. Governments in countries at all stages of development must resolve policy distortions that could fundamentally impede change, or even drive food systems in the wrong direction. Examples include taxation and regulation, subsidies, and food-related research and development. The aim is to give much greater weight to the importance of nutrient-rich foods and better support measures that further both human and planetary health simultaneously.

6. Relevant ministries (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, health, transport infrastructure, environment) need to work together to implement policies for realigning production systems so that they support healthy diets in sustainable ways. Food systems today do not produce enough nutrient-rich foods to meet current needs, let alone projected demand over coming decades, nor are they producing most foods sustainably. Narrow targets related to productivity need to be replaced with broader measures valuing efficiency and sustainability.
7. Relevant government departments need to prioritise building the resilience of food systems, as COVID-19 has highlighted their current deficiencies and vulnerabilities.<fnref n="3" /> A broad approach is required that addresses the causes of the lack of resilience within food systems, the root causes of the threats, and mitigation measures that may be needed during times of stress.

8. Governments in all countries should creatively target actions that can create multiple ‘wins’ across health and sustainability. Opportunities need to be sought throughout food systems, from farm to fork. Major projects in sub-Saharan Africa and China have already shown that this is possible, creating substantial and lasting benefits in terms of jobs, equality, and the development and prosperity of individuals and regions (Fu et al. 2011; Lü et al. 2012; Deng 2014; Goffner et al. 2019). Technological innovations across food systems, from production through processing, storage, and retail, hold considerable promise.

### Donors

9. Donor agencies must support LMICs to ensure that the transition of food systems is socially and ethically just. They have an important role to play in ensuring that the poorest are protected during and after a period of food system transition.

### Companies Operating in the Food System

10. Major transnational businesses and local SMEs must work closely with governments on more clearly articulated common agendas to deliver sustainable, healthy diets. A comprehensive framework for food industry engagement is needed: it is essential that the public and private sectors work together on common agendas and share the costs of implementing them. The private sector must spell out specific, measurable responsibilities for improving diet quality and the sustainability of food systems and be willingly held accountable.

### Civil Society

11. Civil society advocacy groups and citizens need to play their part. The former have a major role in leveraging change in businesses operating across food systems and holding policymakers to account, and the latter have considerable influence to drive change through their purchasing power. However, shifts in demand in favour of sustainable, healthy diets will need encouragement and empowerment through information from trusted sources.

<footnote n="3">³The Global Panel is producing a separate science chapter on the relationship between food systems and the COVID-19 pandemic, and the implications for building resilience.</footnote>
References

Alonso S, Aderu S, Bekele TH, Bishaw Z, Brouwer ID, Brown LR, et al (2021) Background paper. Transforming Ethiopian food systems: better diet quality, prosperity, and sustainability in a changing climate

Bommer C, Sagalova V, Heesemann E, Manne-Goehler J, Atun R, Bärnighausen T et al (2018) Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care. 41(5):963-970

Deng X (2014) Restoration and development of the degraded Loess Plateau, China. Springer, tokyo, pp 215-231

KC KB, Dias GM, Veeramani A, Swanton CJ, Fraser D, Steinke D, et al. When too much isn't enough: does current food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS One. 2018.13(10).

FAO (n.d.). Home | Food-based dietary guidelines | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guide/lines/en/

FAO, IFAD, UNICED, WFP W (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO, Rome

Fu B, Liu Y, Lü Y, He C, Zeng Y, Wu B (2011) Assessing the soil erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China. Ecol Complex. 8(4):284-293

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2017a) Healthy diets for all: a key to meeting the SDGs, Policy Brief No. 10. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2017b) Urban diets and nutrition: Trends, challenges and opportunities for policy action, vol 9. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2020a) Future food systems: for people, our planet, and prosperity. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2020b) Rethinking trade policies to support healthier diets, Policy Brief. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, London

Goffner D, Sinare H, Gordon LJ (2019) The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel initiative as an opportunity to enhance resilience in Sahelian landscapes and livelihoods. Reg Environ Chang. 19(5):1417-1428

Herforth A, Bai Y, Venkat A, Mahrt K, Ebel A, Masters WA (2020) Cost and affordability of healthy diets across countries. Technical Background Paper for SOFI 2020: The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, 2020

International Food Policy Research Institute (2021) 2021 Global Food Policy Report: Transforming Food Systems after COVID-19. IFPRI, Washington, DC

IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Population and Development Review, Bonn

Lü Y, Fu B, Feng X, Zeng Y, Liu Y, Chang R et al (2012) A policy-driven large scale ecological restoration: quantifying ecosystem services changes in the Loess Plateau of China. PLoS One. 7(2):e31782

Monterrosa EC, Frongillo EA, Drewnowski A, de Pee S, Vandevijvere S (2020) Sociocultural influences on food choices and implications for sustainable healthy diets. Food Nutr Bull. 2020.41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120975874

Statista (2020) Food - Worldwide | Statista Market Forecast. Available from: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/worldwide
The World Bank (2021) World development report 2021: data for better lives, A World Bank Flagship Report. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC

The World Bank and Nutrition (2019). Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/nutrition/overview

Van Nieuwkoop M (2019) Do the costs of the global food system outweigh its monetary value? World Bank. Available from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/do-costs-global-food-system-outweigh-its-monetary-value

Webb P (2010) Medium- to long-run implications of high food prices for global nutrition. J Nutr, Available from 140(1):143S–147S. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.109.110536

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /></figure>
# Engaging Science in Food System Transformation: Toward Implementation of the Action Agenda of the United Nations Food Systems Summit

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Joachim von Braun

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /></figure>

## 1 Introduction

The Secretary-General’s “Chair Summary and Statement of Action on the UN Food Systems Summit” strongly emphasizes the role of science in the transformation of food systems. It states, for instance:

* “Progress will require local and global communities of practice and stakeholders coming together with national governments... In particular, support to enhance implementation through financing, data, science and innovation, governance and trade.”

* “Global initiatives to reinforce the ambition of science-based solutions will be key to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.”

* “Collaborating with the High-level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the CFS at global level, support strengthening the science-policy capacities and interfacing at local and national levels.”

**The purpose of this chapter** is to outline a concept for constructive contributions of science towards providing evidence-based insights for national, regional, and global level implementation of the UNFSS Action agenda.<fnref n="1" />

The “Science ecosystem of support” is part of the envisioned support structures for the “FS Follow-Up Coordination Hub” and “Country Level Platforms led by the Government” (see Fig. 1). The science ecosystem of support is understood to be the community of science and knowledge organizations of relevance for food systems.

<footnote n="1">¹The implementation of the UNFSS agenda can draw on the rich material developed by the Scientific Group and its partners compiled in the “Science Reader” for the UNFSS https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ScGroup_Reader_UNFSS2021.pdf</footnote>

<footnote>J. von Braun (✉)</footnote>

<footnote>Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany</footnote>

<footnote>e-mail: jvonbraun@uni-bonn.de</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_187.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The Deputy Secretary-General's presentation to the UNFSS Advisory Group in October 2021 on Summit follow-up</figcaption></figure>

Its support functions include providing evidence for setting coherent national targets of food system transformation; supporting, through science, the translation of targets into action, understood as implementation research; and strengthening related capacity-building for national systems when needed. While we note the terminology of “Science ecosystem of support,” in this chapter we refer simply to the **food systems-relevant science landscape (FSSL)**.

**Food systems** embrace the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal (loss or waste) of food products that originate from agriculture (incl. livestock), forestry, fisheries, and food industries, and the broader economic, societal and natural environments in which they are embedded (building on definitions by FAO (2018), HLPE (2014) and others) (von Braun et al. 2021a). Production includes, of course, farming communities, but also pre-production actors, for example, input industries that produce fertilizers or seeds. The range of actors importantly includes science, technology, data, and innovation actors. They are partly integral to food systems, and partly outside, but hold strong influence, for instance, being embedded in life science and health systems research. In food industries' processing, foods and non-foods result from interlinked value chains. Other relevant food system actors include, for example, public and private quality and safety control organisations.
## 2 Mobilizing the Science and Knowledge Community for Implementation of UNFSS Actions

The Scientific Group has developed a set of seven science-driven priorities of innovations to support the transformation of food systems to achieve the Food Systems Summit goals (von Braun et al. 2021b, c):

1. Innovations to end hunger and increase the availability and affordability of healthy diets and nutritious foods: this bundle partly draws on the six science and innovation actions below.

2. Innovations to de-risk food systems and strengthen resilience, in particular, for negative emission farming, drawing on both advanced science and traditional food system knowledge.

3. Innovations to overcome inefficient and unfair land, credit, labor, and natural resource use arrangements, and facilitate the inclusion, empowerment and rights of women, youths and Indigenous Peoples.

4. Bio-science and digital innovations for improving people's health, enhancing systems' productivity, and restoring ecological well-being.

5. Innovations to maintain—and, where needed, regenerate—productive soils, water and landscapes, and protect diversity of the agricultural genetic base and biodiversity.

6. Innovations for sustainable fisheries, aquaculture, and the protection of coastal areas and oceans.

7. Engineering and digital innovations for the efficiency and inclusiveness of food systems and the empowerment of youths and rural communities.

Furthermore, the Science Group and its partners have published the set of **strategic papers of relevance for national and global level UNFSS actions**, assembled in the “Science Reader for the UNFSS.”<fnref n="2" /> All of these together provide insights into the actions required to enable food system transformation to achieve the UNFSS goals.

**Science–policy interfaces** that serve national, regional and global implementation activities to enable food system transformation should be further explored (von Braun et al. 2021b; Hainzelin et al. 2021). A roundtable format with representatives of the main sets of organizations from the science landscapes could initiate this exploration.

Merely mobilizing science and pushing a supply of scientific findings will not be sufficient for science to play its conducive role in the design of food system transformations. The policy and stakeholder communities need to articulate the **demand for science-based insights**, and even respect uncomfortable findings that may contradict conventional wisdom. It is greatly helpful when government departments cooperate with each other in policymaking for food system innovations, and when they, along with stakeholders from the private sector and civil society, agree to be

<footnote n="2">²See Scientific Group https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ScGroup_Reader_UNFSS2021.pdf</footnote>
guided by factual information. Taking the time and effort to consider complex analyses and findings from modelling is part of mutually constructive engagement between policy and science.

# 1. Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at the country level

We applaud the active participation of UN member states in the Summit: 165 countries participated, with almost 100 of these represented by heads of state. Furthermore, 69 member states noted the salience of science and innovation in the transformation of food systems. About 230 commitments were registered in regard to action areas, made by a diverse group of players ranging from small NGOs to multinational institutions to member-states. A number of coalitions have emerged from the Action Tracks, and member states have the opportunity to engage with coalitions.

The science and knowledge communities must continue to mobilize in each country for national-level implementation of the UNFSS action proposals (Webb et al. 2021). In this context, the fields of science and the scientific and innovative priorities that are critical for shaping sustainable food systems are important to consider. Accordingly, the landscape would comprise, among others:

* Universities' related institutes

* Academies of sciences

* Agricultural, forestry, land, water, and climate research institutions,

* Health and nutrition research centers,

* Indigenous and traditional knowledge carriers,

* Others (incl. Corporate and start-up research and innovation communities, National think-tanks, private sector research institutions, etc.)

The national-level science landscape would engage in national level implementation under the leadership of national governments, and the UN, where applicable (in some countries, possibly augmented by regional science organizations), and in consultation with other stakeholders (corporate, civil society, farmer and consumer orgs). Figure 2 below depicts this science support framework in national contexts.

The key initial task would be to **design details and typologies for countries' science landscapes and science-policy interfaces.** This would entail mapping the FSSL in all countries, considering its regional and international linkages, and communicating it to national implementation actors. Such a mapping exercise mandates action from both the government and the scientific communities, who should jointly map out this landscape (see Fig. 2).

The table in Annex 1a can serve as a guideline in this regard.

As a service, mapping of all of the materials from the Scientific Group and partners that may be of relevance for national concerns can be considered (i.e., relate all of the papers and briefs from the Scientific Group's website to countries' and regional contexts). An important early task could be **modelling national issues in regional and global contexts:** thematic areas of focus could include trade, hunger, healthy diets, ecology, climate, food safety and health, innovations, etc.
<figure><img src="image_188.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Science support framework in national governance contexts</figcaption></figure>

In cases when the science and knowledge community may not have critical mass at the country level, systems of scientific support can be considered at the sub-regional level.

**2. Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at regional levels**

To operationalize the task, national UNFSS focal points need to be made aware of related regional and international organization scientific bodies that could serve their purpose, with information and analyses as input for options on implementation of the UNFSS Action Agenda. Thus, at **regional levels**, the food system-related organizations of sciences that could be mobilized to address trans-national issues could include, among others:

* Regional academies of sciences

* Regional research and innovation institutes

* Regional think-tanks

* Regional scientific bodies and forums

* Regional private research organizations

*A tabulated presentation is presented in Annex 1b.*

**3. Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at the global level**

Similarly, the international science and knowledge communities spanning all of the sciences relevant to food system transformation need to continue to mobilize and engage in international public goods issues that impact the implementation of the UNFSS actions, such as trade, food safety, climate resilience, peace and security, trans-boundary water, equity and inclusion, science and knowledge transfers, and many others. Food system-related organizations of sciences that could be mobilized at the global level could include, among others: