<table><caption>**Table 1** Impacts of emissions leakage through trade</caption><thead><tr><th>Relative emissions efficiency (between imports that displace domestic products)</th><th>Impact on global emissions</th><th>Result of emissions leakage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Imports are produced in systems with lower emissions efficiency (higher emissions per unit of output)</td><td>Increase in global emissions</td><td>Emissions misallocation</td></tr><tr><td>Imports are produced in systems with higher emissions efficiency (lower emissions per unit of output)</td><td>Decrease in global emissions</td><td>Emissions reallocation</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: FAO (2018a)

Several policy incentives can help improve emission efficiency and lower GHG emissions. For example, taxing GHG emissions is a way to 'internalize' their full cost to the society and can provide incentives to farmers to adopt technologies and practices that promote climate change mitigation (FAO 2018a).

However, mitigation policies implemented through a uniform global carbon price would curb emissions, but also reduce agricultural production, raise agricultural commodity prices, and impact food security. Underlining the trade-offs among food security, nutrition and emission reduction targets, especially for developing countries, the most significant reduction in consumption as a result of global carbon taxes has been projected for livestock products in sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2018a; Havlík et al. 2015).

If, instead, carbon taxes were imposed unilaterally, countries that try to internalize the cost of GHGs may inadvertently confer a competitive advantage on others that do not impose a similar measure. This would imply the risk of increasing production and exports from countries without mitigation policies, resulting in emissions leakage. In this case, the impact of this leakage on global emissions may be positive (emissions reallocation) or negative (emissions misallocation), depending on the relative emission efficiency of domestic production vis-à-vis imports (Table 1). Specific trade policies can contribute towards addressing the trade-off between food security and emission reduction targets. To even out disparities between domestic and international levels of carbon taxes, border measures, such as border tax adjustments based on food products' carbon footprints, could be implemented (FAO 2018a).

Instead of, or in addition to, taxing GHG emissions, the labeling of final products with respect to GHGs emitted during their production can be a way of shaping consumer preferences towards lower-emitting production practices.

Common to all of these policies is the fact that they would require an accurate and complete assessment of the costs incurred to the society by the GHGs emitted during agricultural and food production, or, as is usually done in practice, a reliable estimate of the direct emissions involved in the production process of different foods, namely, the carbon footprint.
However, the consistent accounting of GHG emissions in agriculture already implies several challenges, including methodological issues and excessive data requirements. Carbon footprints need to be quantified encompassing the emissions generated in the production and supply of inputs used by farmers, direct and indirect emissions generated in agricultural production processes, and subsequent emissions associated with the transportation, processing, storage, and delivery of products to consumers (FAO 2018a; Rosenzweig et al. 2020). In particular, agricultural production involves many different sources of emissions that need to be covered. Moreover, these sources of emissions are often diffuse, difficult to monitor and varied by location (Escobar et al. 2020). For example, fertilizer use is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions, but measuring the emissions from a given area of land is complicated, since it depends on factors other than the amount of fertilizer applied, many of which are site-specific (e.g., management practices, soil types, and weather) (FAO 2018a).

In addition to overcoming technical challenges in determining carbon footprints in agriculture and possible trade-offs with food security through certain mitigation policies, the carbon-accounting mechanisms would also need to be agreed upon internationally to avoid any trade disputes (FAO 2018a).

Alternative policy approaches to reducing GHG emissions from agriculture center on domestic measures that incentivize climate-smart agricultural practices. These can be indirectly related to trade by altering traded volumes and market signals (FAO 2018a).

## 4.2 Land, Water, Biodiversity

Besides GHG emissions, agricultural production can affect natural resources, such as land and water, and biodiversity. Through trade, these external effects can occur in countries far away from the final point of consumption. In the case of water, these externalities are mainly positive (Dalin and Rodríguez-Iturbe 2016). By importing products and services from countries with abundant water resources, water-deficient countries can alleviate the pressure on their own water supplies (Deng et al. 2021; Pastor et al. 2019).

With increasing agricultural trade, the total land use embodied in said trade also more than doubled (almost tripled) between 1986 and 2016. As in the case of water, countries with absolute or relative abundance of land, such as the United States, Brazil and Argentina, are net exporters of ‘virtual’ agricultural land. Countries with relatively less land per capita, such as Japan, the Netherlands and mainland China, are among the net importers of ‘virtual’ land. Countries with relatively little arable land but high yields, such as European and some Asian countries, tend to export high-value agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables and animal-based foods (Qiang et al. 2020).

However, due to trade-offs with other resource uses, trade may not always allocate production to the regions with the most efficient land use (Roux et al.
2021). For example, a globally optimal allocation of water use might imply an expansion of land use into natural areas and forests (Pastor et al. 2019).

By specializing agricultural production away from certain products that are increasingly imported, land use changes can also occur in importing countries. For example, increased nitrogen pollution was observed in countries that shifted from domestic soybean production to increased soybean imports. In these cases, farmland that was originally used for cultivating soybeans, which can fix nitrogen and require significantly less fertilizer, was converted to grow crops such as wheat, corn, rice and vegetables, which are more prone to overfertilization (Sun et al. 2018).

Land use also affects biodiversity. On the one hand, some farming systems can be beneficial to biodiversity, and many ecosystems depend directly on agricultural land use (Henle et al. 2008; Tscharntke et al. 2012). On the other hand, the conversion of natural habitats to farmland can lead to the displacement or eradication of wildlife (Rockström et al. 2009), and biodiversity in existing agricultural systems can be affected by an overuse of agrochemicals and certain forms of land management.

By distinguishing between biodiversity loss from agricultural land used for exports and that from land used for domestic consumption, increasing import demand from developed countries is sometimes found to be the main driver for biodiversity loss in exporting countries (Chaudhary and Brooks 2019; Chaudhary and Kastner 2016; Lenzen et al. 2012; Moran and Kanemoto 2017). However, more systematic research covering multiple disciplines, various dimensions/indicators of biodiversity and counterfactuals is needed to provide comprehensive assessments of biodiversity footprints (Baylis et al. 2021; de Chazal and Rounsevell 2009; Marquardt et al. 2019; Ortiz et al. 2021).

Overall, the evidence on the effects of extreme weather events, natural hazards, pests and diseases on food systems is concentrated on the main staple crops (maize, rice and wheat) and relatively few types of shocks (Davis et al. 2021). Similarly, the analysis of the impact of trade on the environment also tends to focus on aggregated trade or on trade in staple food crops. Only very recently have studies considered the impacts of a broader range of specific products, such as trade in cash crops (Sporchia et al. 2021).

Ensuring food security and satisfying dietary needs for a growing number of people, especially in already food-deficient regions, may not be possible without exploiting the relative comparative advantage in other regions of the world.

# 5 Globalization of Food: Trade, Social and Health Impacts

Improvements in productivity and the expansion of international trade have increased the availability of food, reduced food prices and contributed to overall declining rates of undernutrition in the world. At the same time, together with higher incomes and a more sedentary lifestyle, trade has also been associated with increasing rates of overweight and obesity worldwide (FAO 2018b, 2020b).
The liberalization of trade and investment has sometimes been identified as being among the key mechanisms through which globalization impacts health (Cowling et al. 2018; Mary and Stoler 2021). Overall, the empirical literature appears to point to a broad association among trade liberalization, improved dietary quality and reduced undernutrition (Cuevas García-Dorado et al. 2019).

However, subject to context and method of analysis, the body of empirical work investigating the relationship among globalization, trade in food and agriculture and health outcomes finds mixed results (Cowling et al. 2018; Cuevas García-Dorado et al. 2019; Mary and Stoler 2021).

Some studies explore the relationship between globalization indices and average body mass index (BMI: kg/m<fnref n="2" />) in specific countries. In low-income countries, increasing mean BMIs can indicate a reduction in undernutrition, while high mean BMIs can also indicate a greater prevalence of overweight in a country.

Economic globalization, measured as an index of trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and restrictions,<fnref n="2" /> was found to be positively related to increases in mean BMI (Vogli et al. 2014). The relationship between economic freedom<fnref n="3" /> and BMI was found to be very weak overall. Only in the case of men living in developing countries was an increase in economic freedom associated with slightly higher BMIs (Lawson et al. 2016).

Several studies consider indicators different from BMI, such as the prevalence of obesity and/or overweight. The economic integration (or economic globalization; see above) between countries is often shown to have no or a decreasing effect on the prevalence of overweight (Costa-Font and Mas 2016; Goryakin et al. 2015; de Soysa and de Soysa 2018).

Globalization can also manifest in shifts in socio-cultural norms, which, in turn, affect consumer preferences, diets and nutritional outcomes. A closer social integration, measured as an index of personal international contacts, international information flows and cultural proximity (Dreher 2006), is sometimes found to be positively associated with obesity (Costa-Font and Mas 2016; Goryakin et al. 2015).

However, socio-cultural aspects of globalization and access to information and communication technology were found to reduce the share of overweight and obese

<footnote n="2">²Several studies distinguish among the impacts of economic, political and social globalization based on the KOF index (Dreher 2006). According to this index, economic integration refers to actual trade and FDI flows and restrictions. Political integration is composed of a country's international engagement with other countries and international organizations, and social integration measures personal international contacts, international information flows and cultural proximity.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Economic freedom was measured with the Economic Freedom of the World index. The index assesses the degree to which policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom. It measures economic freedom in five broad areas: size of government; legal systems and property rights; sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation (Gwartney et al. 2013).</footnote>
young people aged between 15 and 19, suggesting that increased international
interconnectivity in this age group might help spread knowledge about healthier
eating and lifestyle habits (Knutson and de Soysa 2019).

Recent studies also explore the relationship between (general) trade openness and obesity rates. For example, an increase in trade openness was associated with increasing overweight and obesity rates in Brazil (Miljkovic et al. 2018) and at the global level (An et al. 2019). This relationship appeared to be stronger in developing countries with high economic growth rates, while no relationship between trade openness and obesity prevalence was identified among high-income countries (An et al. 2019).

In a study on the effects of social globalization and trade openness on average BMI and different indicators of diet quality, increasing social globalization was associated with higher mean BMI, animal protein and sugar supply. These results seem to be driven by specific components of social globalization such as information flows through television and the internet. Trade openness did not reveal any effect on dietary outcomes or health (Oberlander et al. 2017).

A critical review of methodological approaches used in quantitative analyses of the impacts of global trade and investment on non-communicable diseases and risk factors encourages future studies, *inter alia*, to clearly define the exposure of interest and, in particular, not conflate trade and investment, explore the mechanisms of broader relationships that might steer the results, adjust for reverse causality; increase the use of individual-level data, and consider sector-specific, rather than economy-wide, trade and investment indicators (Cowling et al. 2018).

Empirical evidence on the interlinkages between trade in food and agriculture and nutritional outcomes remains scarce, and, so far, only a few studies have explored these linkages more systematically (FAO 2020b). Agricultural and food trade constitutes an important means to ensure dietary diversity. However, as trade improves the availability and accessibility of both foods necessary for a healthy diet and foods high in fat, sugar, salt and calories, the effects on nutritional outcomes can be mixed (FAO 2018b, 2020b; Krivonos and Kuhn 2019).

In fact, trade has helped overcome the constraints that the uneven distribution of natural resource endowments poses on the supply of foods and nutrients across countries. A study suggests that trade resulted in food and nutrients being more equally distributed in 2010 than in 1970 (Bell et al. 2021).

Agricultural trade openness has also been associated with increasing overweight and obesity prevalence in developing countries (Mary and Stoler 2021); rising imports of sugar and processed foods were found to be correlated with slightly higher average BMIs (Lin et al. 2018); and the exposure to food imports from the United States of America was found to explain part of the rise in obesity prevalence among Mexican women between 1988 and 2012 (Giuntella et al. 2020).
# 6 The Trade Policy Environment

International trade negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and subsequently under the WTO, have contributed to opening global markets, and barriers to agricultural and food trade have declined since the Uruguay Round of the GATT and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture in 1995.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the number of regional trade agreements that have been notified to the WTO has also risen, from fewer than 25 in 1990 to more than 350 being in force in 2021. European countries are currently the main partners in regional trade agreements, followed by countries in East Asia (WTO 2021).

Considerable attention has been paid to prospects for development from the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The AfCFTA has been signed by 54 and ratified by 36 of the 55 African Union (AU) Member States, and entered into force in May 2019, with trade commencing in January 2021 (FAO and AUC 2021). The AfCFTA is expected to significantly increase intra-African trade of agricultural and food products, with estimates ranging between a 20% and 30% increase in 2040 compared to a scenario without the AfCFTA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 2018; United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and Trade-Mark East Africa 2020).

In contrast to multilateral trade agreements, regional trade agreements grant concessions only to a few trade partners, discriminating against others. The proliferation of regional trade agreements is sometimes seen as “building blocks” towards multilateral trade liberalization, but could also hinder further integration (Bhagwati 1991, 1993). This discussion is of particular relevance in the agricultural sector (Sheldon et al. 2018), for which the depth of many regional trade agreements, and thus their actual potential to impact members’ trade, has also been called into question (Grant 2013).

More recently, the use of environmental provisions in trade agreements has increased considerably, a trend that is particularly strong in agreements between industrialized and developing countries (Morin et al. 2018). Moreover, the consideration of nutritional objectives in trade agreements has also emerged (Thow and Nisbett 2019), with the discussion in multilateral fora focusing on issues related to nutrition labeling (Thow et al. 2018).

While the strong focus on environmental and nutrition aspects in trade policy is relatively new, non-tariff measures, especially food safety standards and their international harmonization, continue to be a major point of discussion in agricultural trade (FAO 2020a; Santeramo and Lamonaca 2019; Wieck 2018).

These discussions on environmental provisions and nutritional issues in the context of trade trace the multiple trade-offs among economic, environmental and social objectives within food systems. They also highlight that, in general, the market mechanism cannot guarantee the provision of a range of social and environmental benefits that are central to sustainable development. Food and agricultural trade may result in negative environmental outcomes or may fail to address social objectives, such as reducing inequality.
In food and agriculture, trade policy measures address a broad array of mainly economic objectives. For example, tariffs are commonly used to protect local producers from international competition and can contribute towards maintaining a level of farm income that keeps pace with income in other economic sectors. Tariffs are also used to reduce import dependence and promote self-sufficiency in staple foods. Export restrictions can lower the domestic price of food and contribute towards food security in the short term. Both tariffs and export taxes provide an important source of government revenue. Other measures, such as non-tariff barriers, aim at improving the safety and quality of food. All of these policy instruments should address their objectives as sustainably as possible, but can also entail positive or negative external effects to society and the environment.

Within a food systems approach to trade, policy formulation based on tariffs or export restrictions to address environmental and social objectives, such as the preservation of biodiversity, better nutrition or equity, might be very costly and insufficient to achieve all sustainability targets.

Externalities or non-economic objectives, such as those considered in this chapter, are best addressed by policies that act directly on the relevant margin, for example, using domestic policy instruments such as taxes and subsidies, rather than the introduction of trade distortions. Formulating policies at the margin implies a 'targeting principle' that allows for ranking different policy instruments in line with their effectiveness in addressing externalities or non-economic objectives (Bhagwati and Ramaswami 1963; Dixit 1985; Rodrik 1987). Trade policies may not be the best and most efficient way to address externalities and achieve environmental objectives. For example, a domestic carbon tax acts on the margin, providing incentives to farmers to reduce emissions and adopt climate-smart farming technologies.

In some cases, policy objectives can be independent of each other. For example, the prevalence of overweight and obesity can be addressed by taxes on the sugar or fat content of food or raising awareness of healthy diets, rather than trade policies.

Political economy considerations suggest that trade policies can also be endogenous in the sense that they have been created by pressure groups, such as producer organizations, exerting influence on the policy-making process. In this case, the 'targeting principle' may not apply. For this reason, it is important to understand the process by which policies are formulated and consider context-specific policy approaches, instead of broad principles (Rodrik 1987).

While open markets and free trade are conducive to global food security and promote economic growth, liberalization processes can create winners and losers, and thus should be framed and supported by complementary policies that address market failures, externalities and system-inherent distortions. For example, addressing inequality can be achieved by redistributing gains from liberalization and facilitating mobility across sectors.

In order to effectively design such policies, a better understanding of their simultaneous impacts on all parts of the food system will be necessary. Evolving food system research will require both strong disciplinary approaches and analytical tools integrating several dimensions and multi-level perspectives (Baylis et al. 2021;
van Ittersum et al. 2008). It will also require effective communication of the “plurality and conditionality of complex, dynamic systems research” (Zurek et al. 2018) to non-expert audiences and policy-makers.

## Key Policy Issues to Be Considered on the Food Systems Summit Agenda

Recognize the role of trade in promoting food security, economic growth and better natural resource use and management

Trade openness contributes towards global food security and better nutrition, a better allocation of food production, and a more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources across countries. For a country, participation in global markets and value chains facilitates the diffusion of technology and knowledge and leads to increased productivity and more efficient resource use. To allow trade to flow smoothly and fulfill these functions, unjustified trade distortions and barriers should be avoided. Enhancing market transparency through improved information, cutting red tape and simplifying trade procedures through digitalization can significantly facilitate trade.

Implement complementary policies to address the trade-offs between economic and social objectives in the context of open markets

Open markets lie at the heart of the development process. In developing countries, a range of public policies and investments can help farmers overcome constraints to market access and create an enabling environment for a prospering economy for all. These include skill upgrades and education, the removal of labor market rigidities, and improvements in infrastructure, institutions and regulation. Social protection mechanisms and the redistribution of economic gains from trade openness to vulnerable population groups can improve inclusion and reduce inequalities.

Strengthen the role of trade in climate change adaptation and mitigation

As climate change is expected to have an uneven effect across regions, trade openness can be an important avenue for ensuring food security in countries that are more adversely affected by global warming and extreme weather shocks. However, the mitigating role of trade is equally important. Internalizing the cost of climate change in the food price across countries can help trade reallocate agricultural production to regions where emissions per unit of output is lowest. This can address the dual challenge of meeting food demand growth in the future and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Maximize the gains from trade for all countries

Both regional agreements and multilateral mechanisms can support trade and economic growth. Nevertheless, as food surplus and deficit areas may be located in different world regions and specific products may be most efficiently produced in other parts of the world, gains from agricultural and food trade can be maximized through multilateral mechanisms. Multilateral mechanisms can also help guide an optimal policy mix in addressing trade-offs among economic, health and environmental objectives, such as the harmonization of food safety standards and the development of a common understanding on sustainability certification.
References

Aguiar S, Texeira M, Garibaldi LA, Jobbágy EG (2020) Global changes in crop diversity: trade rather than production enriches supply. Glob Food Sec 26:100385

Ahammad H, Heyhoe E, Nelson G, Sands R, Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, van der Mensbrugghe D, Blanc E, Havlík P, Valin H, Kyle P, d'Croz H, van Meijl H, Schmitz C, Lotze-Campen H, von Lampe M, Tabeau A (2015) The role of international trade under a changing climate: insights from global economic modelling. In: Elbehri A (ed) Climate change and food systems: global assessments and implications for food security and trade. FAO, Rome, pp 293–312

An R, Guan C, Liu J, Chen N, Clarke C (2019) Trade openness and the obesity epidemic: a cross-national study of 175 countries during 1975–2016. Ann Epidemiol 37:31–36

Anderson K (2012) Government trade restrictions and international price volatility. Glob Food Sec 1(2):157–166

Anderson K, Nelgen S (2012) Trade barrier volatility and agricultural price stabilization. World Dev 40(1):36–48

Anderson K, Rausser G, Swinnen J (2013) Political economy of public policies: insights from distortions to agricultural and food markets. J Econ Lit 51(2):423–477

Artuc E, Porto G, Rijkers B (2019) Household impacts of tariffs: data and results from agricultural trade protection. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank. 40 pp. Available at https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-9045

Baldos ULC, Hertel TW (2015) The role of international trade in managing food security risks from climate change. Food Security 7(2):275–290

Balogh JM, Jámbor A (2020) The environmental impacts of agricultural trade: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12(3):1152

Baylis K, Heckelei T, Hertel TW (2021) Agricultural trade and environmental sustainability. Ann Rev Resour Econ 13(1):379–401

Bell W, Lividini K, Masters WA (2021) Global dietary convergence from 1970 to 2010 altered inequality in agriculture, nutrition and health. Nature Food 2(3):156–165

Bhagwati J (1991) The world trading system at risk. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 156 pp

Bhagwati J (1993) Regionalism and multilateralism: an overview. In: de Melo J, Panagariya A (eds) New dimensions in regional integration. Cambridge University Press, pp 22–51

Bhagwati J, Ramaswami VK (1963) Domestic distortions, tariffs and the theory of optimum subsidy. J Polit Econ 71(1):44–50

Biewald A, Rolinski S, Lotze-Campen H, Schmitz C, Dietrich JP (2014) Valuing the impact of trade on local blue water. Ecol Econ 101:43–53

Bonuedi I, Kamasa K, Opoku EEO (2020) Enabling trade across borders and food security in Africa. Food Security 12(5):1121–1140

Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2019) National consumption and global trade impacts on biodiversity. World Dev 121:178–187

Chaudhary A, Kastner T (2016) Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob Environ Chang 38:195–204

de Chazal J, Rounsevell MDA (2009) Land-use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: a review. Glob Environ Chang 19(2):306–315

Costa-Font J, Mas N (2016) ‘Globesity’? The effects of globalization on obesity and caloric intake. Food Policy 64:121–132

Costinot A, Donaldson D (2016) How large are the gains from economic integration? Theory and evidence from U.S. agriculture, 1880–1997. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w22946

Costinot A, Donaldson D, Smith C (2016) Evolving comparative advantage and the impact of climate change in agricultural markets: evidence from 1.7 million fields around the world. J Polit Econ 124(1):205–248
Cowling K, Thow AM, Pollack Porter K (2018) Analyzing the impacts of global trade and investment on non-communicable diseases and risk factors: a critical review of methodological approaches used in quantitative analyses. Glob Health 14(1):53

Cuevas García-Dorado S, Cornselsen L, Smith R, Walls H (2019) Economic globalization, nutrition and health: a review of quantitative evidence. Glob Health 15(1):15

Cui HD, Kuiper M, van Meijl H, Tabeau A (2018) Climate change and global market integration: implications for global economic activities, agricultural commodities and food security. Background Paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO) 2018. Rome, FAO. 42 pp. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/CA2332EN/ca2332en.pdf

Dalin C, Rodríguez-Iturbe I (2016) Environmental impacts of food trade via resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Lett 11(3):035012

Davis KF, Downs S, Gephart JA (2021) Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nature Food 2(1):54–65

Dellink R, Dervisholli E, Nenci S (2020) A quantitative analysis of trends in agricultural and food global value chains (GVCs). Background paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO) 2020. Rome, FAO. 62 pp. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0729en

Deng G, Lu F, Wu L, Xu C (2021) Social network analysis of virtual water trade among major countries in the world. Sci Total Environ 753:142043

Dithmer J, Abdulai A (2017) Does trade openness contribute to food security? A dynamic panel analysis. Food Policy 69:218–230

Dixit A (1985) Chapter 6 Tax policy in open economies. In: Auerbach AJ, Feldstein MS (eds) Handbook of public economics. Elsevier, pp 313–374. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573442085800094

Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl Econ 38(10):1091–1110

Escobar N, Tizado EJ, Zuermgassen EKHJ, Löfgren P, Börner J, Godar J (2020) Spatially-explicit footprints of agricultural commodities: mapping carbon emissions embodied in Brazil’s soy exports. Glob Environ Chang 62:102067

FAO (2016) The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015–16. Trade and food security: achieving a better balance between national priorities and the collective good. FAO, Rome, p 89. Available at http://www.fao.org/publications/soco/the-state-of-agricultural-commodity-markets-2015-16/en/

FAO (2018a) The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2018. Agricultural trade, climate change and food security. FAO, Rome, p 112. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/I9542EN/i9542en.pdf

FAO (2018b) Trade and nutrition technical note. Trade policy technical note No. 21. FAO, Rome, p 8. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/I8545EN/i8545en.pdf

FAO (2018c) The future of food and agriculture – Alternative pathways to 2050. FAO, Rome, p 224. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/I8429EN/i8429en.pdf

FAO (2020a) Understanding international harmonization of pesticide maximum residue limits with Codex standards: a case study on rice. FAO, Rome, p 108. Available at http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb0463en

FAO (2020b) The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. Agricultural markets and sustainable development: Global value chains, smallholder farmers and digital innovations. FAO, Rome, p 164. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0665en

FAO & AUC (2021) Framework for boosting intra-African trade in agricultural commodities and services. FAO and AUC, Addis Ababa, p 80. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3172en

Farrokhi F, Pellegrina HS (2020) Global trade and margins of productivity in agriculture. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w27350

Fleming DA, Abler DG (2013) Does agricultural trade affect productivity? Evidence from Chilean farms. Food Policy 41:11–17

Geyik O, Hadjikakou M, Karapinar B, Bryan BA (2021) Does global food trade close the dietary nutrient gap for the world’s poorest nations? Glob Food Sec 28:100490
Giuntella O, Rieger M, Rotunno L (2020) Weight gains from trade in foods: evidence from Mexico. J Int Econ 122:103277

Goryakin Y, Lobstein T, James WPT, Suhrcke M (2015) The impact of economic, political and social globalization on overweight and obesity in the 56 low and middle income countries. Soc Sci Med 133:67–76

Götz L, Glauben T, Brümmer B (2013) Wheat export restrictions and domestic market effects in Russia and Ukraine during the food crisis. Food Policy 38:214–226

Gouel C, Laborde D (2021) The crucial role of domestic and international market-mediated adaptation to climate change. J Environ Econ Manag 106:102408

Grant JH (2013) Is the growth of regionalism as significant as the headlines suggest? Lessons from agricultural trade. Agric Econ 44(1):93–109

Grossman GM, Helpman E (1991) Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. Eur Econ Rev 35(2): 517–526

Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w3914

Gutierrez L (2002) Why is agricultural labour productivity higher in some countries than others? Agric Econ Rev 3(1):58–72

Gwartney J, Lawson R, Hall J (2013) The economic freedom of the world: 2013 annual report. Fraser Institute

Hart J, Miljkovic D, Shaik S (2015) The impact of trade openness on technical efficiency in the agricultural sector of the European Union. Appl Econ 47(12):1230–1247

Havlík P, Valin H, Gusti M, Schmid, Erwin, Leclère D, Forsell N, Herrero M, Khabarov N, Mosnier A, Cantele M, Obersteiner M (2015) Climate change impacts and mitigation in the developing world. Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank Group, p 56. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/866881467997281798/pdf/WPS7477.pdf

Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D, Moritz RFA, Niemelä J, Rebane M, Wascher D, Watt A, Young J (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe–A review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124(1): 60–71

Irwin DA (2019) Does trade reform promote economic growth? A review of recent evidence. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w25927

van Ittersum MK, Ewert F, Heckelei T, Wery J, Alkan Olsson J, Andersen E, Bezlepkina I, Brouwer F, Donatelli M, Flichman G, Olsson L, Rizzoli AE, van der Wal T, Wien JE, Wolf J (2008) Integrated assessment of agricultural systems – a component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS). Agric Syst 96(1–3):150–165

Janssens C, Havlík P, Krisztin T, Baker J, Frank S, Hasegawa T, Leclère D, Ohrel S, Ragnauth S, Schmid E, Valin H, Van Lipzig N, Maertens M (2020) Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nat Clim Chang 10(9):829–835

Kalkuhl M, von Braun J, Torero M (2016) Volatile and extreme food prices, food security, and policy: an overview. In: Kalkuhl M, von Braun J, Torero M (eds) Food price volatility and its implications for food security and policy. Springer, Cham, pp 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-28201-5_1

Knutson A, de Soysa I (2019) Does social globalisation through access to information communication technologies drive obesity among youth? An empirical analysis, 1990–2013. Glob Public Health 14(12):1911–1926

Krivonos E, Kuhn L (2019) Trade and dietary diversity in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Food Policy 88:101767

von Lampe M, Willenbockel D, Ahammad H, Blanc E, Cai Y, Calvin K, Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Havlik P, Heyhoe E, Kyle P, Lotze-Campen H, Mason d'Croz D, Nelson GC, Sands RD, Schmitz C, Tabeau A, Valin H, van der Mensbrugghe D, van Meijl H (2014) Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP global economic model intercomparison. Agric Econ 45(1):3–20
Lawson RA, Murphy RH, Williamson CR (2016) The relationship between income, economic freedom, and BMI. Public Health 134:18–25

Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L, Geschke A (2012) International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486(7401):109

Lin TK, Teymourian Y, Tursini MS (2018) The effect of sugar and processed food imports on the prevalence of overweight and obesity in 172 countries. Glob Health 14(1):35

Marquardt SG, Guindon M, Wilting HC, Steinmann ZJN, Sim S, Kulak M, Huijbregts MAJ (2019) Consumption-based biodiversity footprints – do different indicators yield different results? Ecol Indic 103:461–470

Martin W (2018) A research agenda for international agricultural trade. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 40(1):155–173

Martin W, Anderson K (2012) Export restrictions and price insulation during commodity price booms. Am J Agric Econ 94(2):422–427

Mary S (2019) Hungry for free trade? Food trade and extreme hunger in developing countries. Food Security 11(2):461–477

Mary S, Stoler A (2021) Does agricultural trade liberalization increase obesity in developing countries? Rev Dev Econ

Miljkovic D, de Miranda SHG, Kassouf AL, Oliveira FCR (2018) Determinants of obesity in Brazil: the effects of trade liberalization and socio-economic variables. Appl Econ 50(28): 3076–3088

Montalbano P, Nenci S (2020) The effects of global value chain (GVC) participation on the economic growth of the agricultural and food sectors. Background paper for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO) 2020, FAO, Rome, p 60. Available at http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb0714en

Moran D, Kanemoto K (2017) Identifying species threat hotspots from global supply chains. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(1):0023

Morin J-F, Dür A, Lechner L (2018) Mapping the trade and environment nexus: insights from a new data set. Global Environmental Politics 18(1):122–139

Nath IB (2020) The food problem and the aggregate productivity consequences of climate change. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w27297

Nelson GC, Valin H, Sands RD, Havlík P, Ahammad H, Deryng D, Elliott J, Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Heyhoe E, Kyle P, Lampe MV, Lotze-Campen H, d'Croz DM, van Meijl H, van der Mensbrugghe D, Müller C, Popp A, Robertson R, Robinson S, Schmid E, Schmitz C, Tabeau A, Willenbockel D (2014) Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(9):3274–3279

Oberlander L, Disdier A-C, Etilé F (2017) Globalisation and national trends in nutrition and health: a grouped fixed-effects approach to intercountry heterogeneity. Health Econ 26(9):1146–1161

OECD (2015) The economic consequences of climate change. OECD Publishing, Paris, p 140. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en

Olper A, Curzi D, Raimondi V (2017) Imported intermediate inputs and firms’ productivity growth: evidence from the food industry. J Agric Econ 68(1):280–300

Ortiz AMD, Outhwaite CL, Dalin C, Newbold T (2021) A review of the interactions between biodiversity, agriculture, climate change, and international trade: research and policy priorities. One Earth 4(1):88–101

Pace ML, Gephart JA (2017) Trade: a driver of present and future ecosystems. Ecosystems 20(1): 44–53

Pastor AV, Palazzo A, Havlik P, Biemans H, Wada Y, Obersteiner M, Kabat P, Ludwig F (2019) The global nexus of food-trade-water sustaining environmental flows by 2050. Nature Sustainability 2(6):499–507

Pendrill F, Persson UM, Godar J, Kastner T, Moran D, Schmidt S, Wood R (2019) Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob Environ Chang 56:1–10
Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. *Science* 333(6047):1289–1291

Qiang W, Niu S, Liu A, Kastner T, Bie Q, Wang X, Cheng S (2020) Trends in global virtual land trade in relation to agricultural products. *Land Use Policy* 92:104439

Rapsomanikis G (2011) Price transmission and volatility spillovers in food markets. In: Prakash A (ed) Safeguarding food security in volatile global markets. Rome, FAO, pp 144–163

Reilly J (1995) Climate change and global agriculture: recent findings and issues. *Am J Agric Econ* 77(3):727–733

Remans R, Wood SA, Saha N, Anderman TL, DeFries RS (2014) Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies. *Glob Food Sec* 3(3):174–182

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. *Nature* 461(7263):472–475

Rodrik D (1987) Policy targeting with endogenous distortions: theory of optimum subsidy revisited. *Q J Econ* 102(4):903–911

Rosenzweig C, Mbow C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Herrero M, Krishnapillai M, Liwenga ET, Pradhan P, Rivera-Ferre MG, Sapkota T, Tubiello FN, Xu Y, Mencos Contreras E, Portugal-Pereira J (2020) Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. *Nature Food* 1(2):94–97

Roux N, Kastner T, Erb K-H, Haberl H (2021) Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production. *Ecol Econ* 181:106915

Rude J, An H (2015) Explaining grain and oilseed price volatility: the role of export restrictions. *Food Policy* 57:83–92

Santeramo FG, Lamonaca E (2019) The effects of non-tariff measures on agri-food trade: a review and meta-analysis of empirical evidence. *J Agric Econ* 70(3):595–617

Schmidhuber J, Tubiello FN (2007) Global food security under climate change. *Proc Natl Acad Sci* 104(50):19703–19708

Schmitz C, Biewald A, Lotze-Campen H, Popp A, Dietrich JP, Bodirsky B, Krause M, Weindl I (2012) Trading more food: implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system. *Glob Environ Chang* 22(1):189–209

Schmitz C, Kreidenweis U, Lotze-Campen H, Popp A, Krause M, Dietrich JP, Müller C (2015) Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. *Reg Environ Chang* 15(8):1757–1772

Sheldon IM, Chow DCK, McGuire W (2018) Trade liberalization and constraints on moves to protectionism: multilateralism vs. regionalism. *Am J Agric Econ* 100(5):1375–1390

Smith O, Momber G, Bates R, Garwood P, Fitch S, Pallen M, Gaffney V, Allaby RG (2015) Sedimentary DNA from a submerged site reveals wheat in the British Isles 8000 years ago. *Science* 347(6225):998–1001

de Soysa I, de Soysa AK (2018) Do globalization and free markets drive obesity among children and youth? An empirical analysis, 1990–2013. *International Interactions* 44(1):88–106

Sporchia F, Taherzadeh O, Caro D (2021) Stimulating environmental degradation: a global study of resource use in cocoa, coffee, tea and tobacco supply chains. *Current Research in Environmental Sustainability* 3:100029

Stevanović M, Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Dietrich JP, Müller C, Bonsch M, Schmitz C, Bodirsky BL, Humpenöder F, Weindl I (2016) The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare. *Sci Adv* 2(8):e1501452

Sun J, Mooney H, Wu W, Tang H, Tong Y, Xu Z, Huang B, Cheng Y, Yang X, Wei D, Zhang F, Liu J (2018) Importing food damages domestic environment: evidence from global soybean trade. *Proc Natl Acad Sci* 115(21):5415–5419
Tadesse G, Algieri B, Kalkuhl M, von Braun J (2014) Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility. Food Policy 47:117–128

Teignier M (2018) The role of trade in structural transformation. J Dev Econ 130:45–65

Thow AM, Jones A, Hawkes C, Ali I, Labonté R (2018) Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue: lessons from an analysis of specific trade concerns at the World Trade Organization. Health Promot Int 33(4):561–571

Thow AM, Nisbett N (2019) Trade, nutrition, and sustainable food systems. Lancet 394(10200): 716–718

Tombe T (2015) The missing food problem: trade, agriculture, and international productivity differences. Am Econ J Macroecon 7(3):226–258

Traverso S, Schiavo S (2020) Fair trade or trade fair? International food trade and cross-border macronutrient flows. World Dev 132:104976

Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151(1):53–59

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2018) An empirical assessment of the African Continental Free Trade Area modalities on goods. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, p 5. Available at https://repository.uneca.org/handle/10855/41828

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa & Trademark East Africa (2020) Creating a unified regional market. Towards the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area in East Africa. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and Trademark East Africa, Kigali, p 144. Available at https://archive.uneca.org/sites/default/files/PublicationFiles/tmea_afcfta_report_5_june_2020.pdf

Vogli RD, Kouvonen A, Elovainio M, Marmot M (2014) Economic globalization, inequality and body mass index: a cross-national analysis of 127 countries. Crit Public Health 24(1):7–21

Wheeler T, von Braun J (2013) Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341(6145): 508–513

Wieck C (2018) International trade rules for food safety and food quality. In: Meilke K, Josling T (eds) Handbook of international food and agricultural policies. World Scientific, pp 277–308. Available at https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789813226487_0011

Wiebe K, Lotze-Campen H, Sands R, Tabeau A, van der Mensbrugghe D, Biewald A, Bodirsky B, Islam S, Kavallari A, Mason-D'Croz D, Müller C, Popp A, Robertson R, Robinson S, van Meijl H, Willenbockel D (2015) Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios. Environ Res Lett 10(8):085010

Wood S, Smith M, Fanzo J, Remans R, DeFries R (2018) Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nature Sustainability 1:34–37

WTO (2021) WTOIRegional Trade Agreements gateway [online]. [Cited 15 April 2021]. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm

Zurek M, Hebinck A, Leip A, Vervoort J, Kuiper M, Garrone M, Havlík P, Heckelei T, Hornborg S, Ingram J, Kuijsten A, Shutes L, Geleijnse JM, Terluin I, Van't Veer P, Wijnands J, Zimmermann A, Achterbosch T (2018) Assessing sustainable food and nutrition security of the EU food system — An integrated approach. Sustainability 10(11):4271
**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_144.png" /></figure>
Part VI

**Regional Perspectives**
<figure><img src="image_145.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Policy Options for Food System Transformation in Africa and the Role of Science, Technology and Innovation

Ousmane Badiane, Sheryl L. Hendriks, Katrin Glatzel, Fadi Abdelradi, Assefa Admassie, John Asafu Adjaye, Miltone Ayieko, Endashaw Bekele, Thameur Chaibi, Mohamed Hag Ali Hassan, Mame Samba Mbaye, Fatima Ezzahra Mengoub, Douglas W. Miano, John H. Muyonga, Tolulope Olofinbiyi, Racha Ramadan, and Simbarashe Sibanda

## 1 Introduction

Over the past decade, Africa's food systems have begun to transform, sparked by economic recovery, rising incomes, an expanding middle class, a growing population, rapid urbanization, globalization, and digitalization, among other factors. These key drivers are inducing fundamental changes in the dietary preferences and habits of consumers and the corresponding demand for food, with responses from the

O. Badiane (✉)

Akademiya2063, Kigali, Rwanda

e-mail: obadiane@akademiya2063.org

S. L. Hendriks

Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

K. Glatzel

Department of Policy Innovation, Akademiya2063, Dakar, Senegal

F. Abdelradi

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo, Giza, Egypt

A. Admassie

School of Economics, Addis Ababa University, Ababa, Ethiopia

J. A. Adjaye

The African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET), Accra, Ghana

M. Ayieko

Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya

E. Bekele

Addis Ababa University, Ababa, Ethiopia

T. Chaibi

National Research Institute of Rural Engineering, Water and Forests (INRGREF), Tunis, Tunisia
components of food systems, including food production, distribution and allocation (Tschirley et al. 2019). Yet, the shifts are coupled with a variety of challenges, including climate change, environmental degradation, low adoption of new technologies, and a growing energy deficit, amidst ongoing, rising resource-scarcity and limited financial resources, as well as socio-economic shocks, migration and youth unemployment. Covid-19 has added an additional strain on African food systems. Now is the opportunity to take stock, re-think and advance African food systems, to make them more sustainable, nutritious, resilient, and inclusive.

The UNFSS and COP26 have provided important moments for shaping the future of the region's food systems and ensuring that the much-needed agriculture-led growth and development agenda can simultaneously deliver on improving nutrition and health, saving lives, and protecting the environment. This includes addressing the usual elements of undernutrition and widespread micronutrient deficiencies and the growing problem of overweight and obesity that is increasing across the continent.

The chapter begins with a discussion of the context within which African food systems have developed and are now transforming, their key drivers, and the challenges and opportunities for this transformation. It concludes with STI and policy actions that are required to accelerate the transformation of food systems across the continent. The discussions are informed by literature and perspectives coming out of leading think tanks and universities in Africa.

M. H. A. Hassan

The World Academy of Sciences for the Advancement of Science in Developing Countries
(TWAS), Trieste, Italy

M. S. Mbaye

Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (UCAD), Dakar, Senegal

F. E. Mengoub

Policy Center for the New South, Rabat, Morocco

D. W. Miano

Department of Plant Science and Crop Protection, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

J. H. Muyonga

School of Food Technology, Nutrition & Bioengineering, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

T. Olofinbiyi

Akademiya2063, Nairobi, Kenya

R. Ramadan

Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

S. Sibanda

The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), Pretoria, South Africa
## 2 The Context of African Food Systems

African food systems are diverse, and draw on several traditional and modern technologies. Agriculture (including crop production, animal husbandry, fisheries and forestry, and processing) can stimulate economic growth and enhance economic transformation in Africa through raising rural incomes, creating jobs, and increasing government revenue (Baumüller et al. 2021). Increasing producers’ and processors’ incomes can positively affect poverty reduction and food security and nutrition (Baumüller et al. 2021). The emergence of processing sectors across the continent offers great potential to transform food systems, generate much-needed employment opportunities and positively impact nutrition. Furthermore, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers many additional opportunities for the development of food systems, including diverse livelihoods across the food system and the provision of safe and nutritious food to all on the continent using Africa’s own resources and reducing the reliance on imports and development assistance.

Africa will require radical actions to reduce undernutrition, correct micronutrient deficiencies and simultaneously stem the tide of increasing overweight and obesity. Africa had the highest regional undernourishment rate in 2019 (19.1%, or more than 250 million undernourished people), more than twice the world average and growing faster than any other region (FAO et al. 2020). The proportion of undernourished people has risen by 1.5% since 2014 and is projected to rise to 25.7% by 2030 (FAO et al. 2020). More than 675 million people in Africa were food insecure (as measured by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale of FIES) in 2019 (FAO et al. 2020). Recent economic slowdowns and downturns partly explain the increase in hunger in several parts of Africa South of the Sahara (SSA) (FAO et al. 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic and other more localized shocks have worsened the situation, increasing the vulnerability of resource-poor food producers, particularly in already fragile regions.

The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted food systems and livelihoods in Africa and threatens the significant gains over the past few decades in African development. The pandemic has led to transport restrictions and quarantine measures that restrict farmers’ access to input and output markets and services, including human and animal health services (MaMo 2020). While data suggest that Africa has largely been spared the pandemic’s scourge (Maeda and Nkengasong 2021), the long-term impacts have yet to unfold.

Food system transformation is required to ensure adequate incomes for producers and enable access to affordable, healthy diets<fnref n="1" /> while managing increasing food demand from growing and rapidly urbanizing populations. Hence, the need to refocus the broader agricultural development agenda in Africa, in particular, under CAADP, to adopt a food systems lens. As food systems require cross-sectoral

<footnote n="1">¹A healthy diet is health-promoting and disease-preventing. It provides adequate nutrients (without excess) and health-promoting substances from nutritious foods and avoids the consumption of health-harming substances (Neufeld et al. 2021a, b).</footnote>
coordination beyond what was needed for CAADP, institutional innovation is also
needed for Africa to rise to the vision of the AUC Agenda 2063 and the Food
Systems Summit's aspirations.

**2.1 Drivers and Opportunities**

The main drivers of food system transformation in Africa include sustained eco-
nomic recovery and rising incomes, rapid urbanization, steady population growth,
deepening globalization, and digitalization. Each of these drivers and how they
contribute to the transformation of food systems across Africa are reviewed below.

(a) Sustained, broad economic recovery and rising incomes

The strong economic recovery observed across the African continent—with consid-
erable growth acceleration since the early 2000s—is striking. Between 2000 and
2014, real per capita GDP has increased by over one-third on average, with faster
growth of up to 100% or more in some countries. Furthermore, GDP per capita is
projected to double by 2050. This positive growth trajectory has contributed to
reductions in poverty and the emergence of a sizable, dynamic middle class. Rising
incomes, accompanied by a growing middle class, are shaping the composition of
consumer diets, driving an increasing demand for animal-source foods, such as
dairy, eggs and meat. Between 2000 and 2010, per capita consumption of eggs,
meat and milk in Africa grew by 24, 25 and 47%, respectively. By 2050, it is
projected that per capita consumption of meat and milk will reach 26 kg and 64 kg
per year, while close to 70% of total meat and milk consumption is expected to come
from urban areas (MaMo 2020). Despite improvements in the quality of diets,
hunger and malnutrition levels in Africa have remained high. While income growth
is important for food security and nutrition, it is crucial to ensure that the food
demands of high-income consumers are not catered to at the expense of the avail-
ability of more affordable foods for low-income consumers.

(b) Population growth and distribution

Countries in SSA are expected to account for over half of the world's population
growth between 2019 and 2050. Further, by the end of the century, the continent is
projected to add more than 1 billion people. With higher food demand, Africa is
experiencing a widening food import gap, putting pressure on food production
systems and scarce foreign exchange resources. Moreover, Africa's youth popula-
tion is growing faster than other age groups, providing an opportunity for a demo-
graphic dividend with potentially positive effects on food system transformation and
economic growth. Meeting the nutritional and employment needs of a growing
young population will be key to reaping the demographic dividend. A rapid increase
in rural density across the continent, particularly in peri-urban centers, is contribut-
ing to the transformation of agriculture and the diversification of rural economies—
thereby influencing the structure of farming (Allen 2015). In some countries, the
number of medium- and large-scale farms is increasing, and in others, they already account for a sizable and rising portion of total farmland. Agribusinesses and downstream food systems are thus responding to population growth and urbanization in dynamic ways.

### (c) Urbanization

Urbanization across Africa has reached the levels of other regions in the world and has continued to grow at a rate of nearly 4% per annum. While there were only two African cities with more than a million inhabitants in 1950, this increased to 50 in 2010 and is expected to nearly double by 2025 (Conway et al. 2019). An important feature of Africa's urbanization, with significant implications for food system transformation, is that it is being driven by the emergence of many small cities or rural towns.

Africa's total urban food market is projected to reach US$ 150 billion by 2030, with potential opportunities for smallholder farmers to capture as much as US$30 billion (AUC/NEPAD 2008). Urbanization in Africa is driving increased demand for processed, ready-to-cook, or ready-to-eat foods, such as couscous, millet flour, garri (cassava flakes), and ultra-processed foods. By 2040, the share of processed foods is expected to increase five to tenfold compared to 2010 and will account for nearly 75% of the demand for staple foods (Conway et al. 2019). However, urbanization and the associated changes in consumer lifestyle and diets can increase overweight and obesity (Ziraba et al. 2009). There is a widespread increase in the consumption of refined or highly processed foods, as well as of sugar, salt, fats, and oils. At the same time, growing attention to public health and diets presents opportunities to decrease the prevalence of obesity and diet-related chronic and non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes and heart diseases.

### (d) Globalization, the large-scale food industry, and trade

Globalization and the growth of the large-scale food industry, including the rapid development of supermarkets, are driving changes in the supply and demand of food. Moreover, trade policies and processes that facilitate or mitigate the expansion of trade are contributing to the globalization of food trade and increasing the demand for food quality and safety standards. These drivers are closely linked with urbanization, rising incomes, and a growing middle class, as changing environments and preferences interact to influence dietary patterns. Domestically, the need to feed Africa's growing cities is reshaping farmers' access to markets, starting with those closest to towns and moving outward into remote areas. The rise of secondary cities is expanding market access and extending value chains into previously hard-to-reach areas. To harness the benefits afforded by greater domestic, regional and international trade, it is necessary to raise the productivity of smallholder farmers, improve the quality of their produce and boost competitiveness of domestic processing sectors.
## 2.2 Threats and Challenges

While a new optimism has emerged about the potential of food system transformation, African food systems continue to face several challenges, including low levels of investment in agriculture, climate change, environmental degradation, limited adoption levels of yield-increasing technologies, slow adoption of biotechnology, and an energy deficit.

### (a) Climate change and environmental degradation

Climate change is a major risk to food system transformation. It presents significant challenges to African agriculture and threatens recent progress in increasing productivity and reducing poverty and hunger. The combination of rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns is projected to result in a broad range of impacts, including increases in the frequency of weather volatility and extreme weather events, rising sea levels, changes in the incidence of agricultural pests and diseases, adverse effects on crop productivity, and a general decline in the production of several key crops in the coming decades (Pereira 2017). By 2050, climate change is expected to leave more than 38 million more people at risk of hunger in SSA than would otherwise be the case, particularly in Eastern Africa. In addition, more than 4 million children under five years of age are projected to face malnutrition (Wiebe et al. 2017).

Even though the intensification and homogenization of food systems have contributed to increases in per capita agricultural outputs, they have resulted in major degradation of soils and a loss of biodiversity around the world, including in Africa. Several studies show not only the significant impacts of degradation on agricultural production in SSA (hence, threats to future food security), but also the need for solutions that are tailored specifically to local agro-ecological conditions and farming systems (Bindraban et al. 2012). Ensuring food security and safeguarding biodiversity should not be seen as incompatible goals, but rather as synergetic, given the interdependence between agriculture and biodiversity, as well as the important role that each plays in preserving the other.

### (b) Limited adoption of improved production technologies

The expanded use of modern inputs, such as improved seeds, irrigation, and mechanization, have significant potential to accelerate food system transformation, but the intensity of input use in Africa still lags behind that of other regions (Sheahan and Barrett 2017). Africa has the least mechanized food systems in the world: farmers have ten times fewer mechanized tools per farm area than farmers in other developing regions, and access has not grown as quickly as in other regions. However, some countries have experienced more dynamic growth in mechanization, by emphasizing equipment rental or service hiring markets, improving access to credit, promoting domestic manufacturing, and improving the environment for public-private partnerships to thrive (MaMo 2019b). Mechanization in African food systems needs rethinking and fresh strategies. Its success will not only be
about technology, but also organizational innovations, such as reliable services and cooperation arrangements for and with farmers. Opportunities for mechanization must be harnessed at each stage of the agricultural value chain and, when done right, can and should be employment-enhancing, not labor-replacing (MaMo 2018).

### (c) Slow adoption of biotechnology

Biotechnology, including improved seed varieties, has not been widely embraced across Africa. Investment in technical expertise and the development of institutional infrastructure for harnessing biotechnology and fostering adoption, particularly among smallholders, are a priority. Through crop biotechnology and genomics, scientists are designing and developing crops with higher yields, additional nutrients, and enhanced tastes. The power of modern agricultural biotechnology and genomics in transforming African food systems into a force of economic growth, creating wealth in the rural space and beyond, feeding a growing African population and conserving resources for future generations, cannot be ignored.

### (d) Energy deficit

Currently, Africa faces the highest costs of electricity provision in the world, and large shares of the population, particularly in rural areas, remain unconnected to energy grids (Badiane et al. 2020). Recent figures show that 580 million people in Africa still lacked access to electricity in 2019 (Ringler and Brent 2020). Policies that explore promising off mini-grid solutions that can meet the needs of smallholder farmers, agro-industries and households in remote areas should be explored, coupled with fiscal incentives, including reduced import duties. Expanding access to alternative sources of energy, such as solar, wind and biogas, can help boost food security across the continent by stimulating sustainable agricultural development and improving water security, thereby accelerating rural and economic growth (Ringler and Brent 2020). One promising example is cluster-based approaches to agricultural electrification through “farm blocks” that are equipped with basic infrastructure and complemented by industrial cluster zones for agricultural processing (MaMo 2019b).

## 3 Transforming Food Systems in Africa Through STI and Policy Innovations

Adopting an integrated approach to transforming food systems could provide multiple opportunities for the development of African economies and societies. With her rich diversity of production systems, significant biodiversity and strong cultural association with traditional diets that are, for the most part, nutritious and healthy, the development of Africa's food systems has the potential to build healthier, more sustainable and more equitable systems.
Any change in food systems will lead to a multiplicity of changes affecting nutrition, health, welfare and the environment. The health implications, welfare outcomes (such as through livelihood outcomes, wages and incomes) and dietary patterns' environmental footprints are strongly dependent on how foods are produced and processed. STI can help support food system development in ways that protect resources, provide livelihood opportunities and improve incomes across the system, while delivering more nutritious and healthy diets.

Policies and practices that promote adaptation to rapidly changing climate conditions are urgently required. A key intervention is the adoption of improved agricultural technologies for sustainable intensification (Wiebe et al. 2017). Wide-spread adoption of climate-smart practices, such as integrated soil fertility management, drought- and heat-tolerant crop varieties, integrated crop-livestock management, and conservation agriculture, should also be encouraged (Nkonya and Koo 2017; Conway et al. 2019). While these climate-smart agriculture practices show promise in terms of higher productivity and improvements to food security, their adoption by smallholder farmers in SSA is constrained by limited access to inputs and information, markets, and risk-management tools. Major investments in research and technology, coupled with institutional and physical infrastructure, are therefore needed.

Digitalization has significant potential to improve efficiency, equity, and environmental sustainability in food systems across Africa. The use of digital and data-driven technologies at each segment of agriculture value chains can guide and support decisions on production methods, value chain optimization, and storage methods so as to avoid food waste and loss. For many farmers, access to output and input markets has increased as a digital revolution is allowing markets to connect faster.

The private sector is already playing a major role in accelerating the development of promising technologies and solutions in the food and agriculture sector. Innovation funds, often in the form of grants, are now being used to create platforms for innovative activity by providing incentives to improve collaboration and the quality of services offered. Placing digitalization at the center of food system transformation strategies and policies will be key to harnessing its cross-cutting innovative power. Moreover, data derived from digitalization efforts offer opportunities to design better-informed policies for food system transformation at scale.

It should be noted that the biotechnology revolution arose from the convergence of advancements in the biological, physical, engineering, and social sciences. In terms of food systems, what converges is the technical reinforcement of these advancements in terms of product optimization and formulation and the mutual benefit of different disciplines. Food systems approaches will bring about new innovations from transdisciplinary perspectives to solve unique problems.
## 3.1 Improving Production Efficiency and Restoring and Sustainably Managing Natural Resources

Within the context of a growing demand for food (including animal-sourced foods), improving the efficiency of production systems is necessary, given constraints on land and resource availability and the relatively small land plots in most of Africa (Lowder et al. 2016). At the same time, it is also an environmental imperative.

Restoring soil fertility is a major priority for agricultural transformation in Africa. Continuous cropping and unsustainable cultivation practices driven by shrinking farm sizes and increasing food demand threaten future food supply in Africa (Jayne et al. 2014), limiting the potential benefit from yield gains offered by plant genetic improvement (Tittonell and Giller 2013). Appropriate soil improvement practices and informed production choices are essential to prevent further degradation. A holistic and integrated strategy is needed that focuses on raising organic matter and improving moisture retention (Kihara et al. 2016). The soil microbiome affects how plants react to environmental stresses such as high salinity and low water availability and diseases. The isolation of microbial strains and modern high-throughput sequencing technologies are being used to catalogue microbial species associated with plants in different soils, including arid and saline soils (Wild 2016). The development of next-generation crop varieties should simultaneously select beneficial characteristics in both the plant and the microbiome to improve soil fertility and crop yields (Gopal and Gupta 2016). Research is also needed to develop protective seed coatings to protect plants from soil-borne pests and pathogens while also providing micro bio-fertilizers (Rocha et al. 2019).

Sustainably managing water use for food production, food processing and industrialization, as well as safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, is critical for successful food system transformation. The demand for these resources competes for the available water that can be eased through use of appropriate technology and policies. Urbanization will place increased pressure on water demand and compete with water for food production, while urbanization and industrialization also pose threats to overall water quality.

Irrigation use remains low in Africa. Yet, evidence shows that average yields on irrigated areas are 90% higher than in nearby rainfed areas. Investment and innovation will be necessary for low-cost yet efficient irrigation options to mitigate the impact of water scarcity and expand the availability of diverse foods year-round. Hydroponic production, with recirculation of water and nutrients in a closed system, can reduce water consumption (Al Shrouf 2017), while drip irrigation delivers just the right amount of water, at a specific time, to a precise spot where the water will be best absorbed by the plant, producing “more crop per drop.” Promoting the use of renewable energies in water desalination for agriculture use could offer competitive cost options for the delivery of modern energy and increase the use of non-conventional water resources to guarantee long-term food security and socio-economic stability.
Many energy-generation systems also depend on water sources for hydroelectric power, the cooling of power plants and hydraulic fracturing. Several countries with large-scale irrigation programs source water from aquifers, threatening long-term sustainability, and possibly leading to conflict over water in the future. Competition for water needs to be eased using appropriate technology and policies to protect and manage water resources (including river basins and lakes). Water-harvesting and storage are necessary to support crop and livestock production. More innovation is required in recycling wastewater to increase the overall availability of water. The desalination of seawater offers one option to increase the availability of water for human consumption and agricultural production. However, this technology is still expensive and results in waste (high salt concentrations) that poses additional environmental problems (Ahmadi et al. 2020).

Livestock is an important element of millions of people's livelihoods in Africa's pastoralist, mixed crop-livestock farming and commercial systems, offering multiple opportunities for income and employment. Increases in demand for animal products in African countries outpace supply. Meeting this demand will require substantial increases in production while reducing the environmental footprint of livestock production. Livestock (including poultry, swine, sheep, goats, cattle and rabbits) are good sources of high-quality animal protein with rich amino acid profiles (NASAC 2018). They also provide much-needed nutrient-dense foods, vital to overcoming the high rates of child malnutrition in Africa.

However, globally, livestock accounts for 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions (cattle for 60% of these), with emissions linked to food digestion and feed production dominating emissions from ruminants (Gerber et al. 2013), and about a third of the freshwater footprint for agriculture (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2012). Although Africa's livestock sector is still primarily extensive (rather than intensive, industrialized production), this may change as the demand for animal-sourced foods increases with shifting urbanization and changes in income in middle-income countries. Climate change could affect future grazing capacities, lead to more migration of animal herds, and increase zoonotic disease incidence (MaMo Panel 2020).

Livestock genetic improvement programs, interventions to increase carbon sequestration in grasslands and improved management of grazing lands could significantly increase productivity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Gerber et al. 2013; Henderson et al. 2015). The use of high-quality forage grasses and legumes offers a wide array of benefits, including higher livestock and crop productivity, restoration of degraded land through the accumulation of organic matter in soils, and improvement of soil fertility through the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, the inhibition of nitrification in the soil and a year-round supply of feedstock (Rao et al. 2015). Indigenous feed resources can be incorporated into feeds to promote sustainability. The available genetic variability of forage plants is still largely untapped and underutilized (Sandhu et al. 2015). Drought-tolerant *Brachiaria* grasses originated primarily in natural grasslands in Africa, yet they have only recently been re-introduced for commercial cultivation in African countries at a significant scale. It has been estimated that cows reared in *Brachiaria* pastures could
increase productivity by up to 40% in Kenya and Rwanda compared to native grasslands, with spillover benefits further down the value chain (Maina et al. 2020).

Emerging challenges in animal health include improving resistance to disease and combating the misuse of antibiotics in animal production systems (Kimera et al. 2020). An example of such pests is the trypanosome parasites. Trypanosomiasis greatly restricts cattle rearing in 32 countries of SSA, leading to losses due to lost animals and animal products of between US$1 billion and US$6 billion annually (Yaro et al. 2016). The development of conventional vaccines against the parasite has been thwarted by trypanosomes' ability to continuously change the antigenic properties of their surface coat and evade attack by the host's immune system (Radwanska et al. 2008). The discovery of innate resistance to trypanosomiasis in some African wild animals linked to the presence of a protein in their blood that kills trypanosomes, called APOL1, has opened new avenues of research (Del Pilar Molina-Portela et al. 2005), offering opportunities to develop effective vaccines.

Fish is an important source of food and nutrients, as well as livelihoods, in Africa. Fish provides 19% of animal protein in African diets (Chan et al. 2019). Africa is a net importer of fish (Chan et al. 2019). A threefold increase in production is needed to meet expected demands in fish (Chan et al. 2019). Aquaculture, an emerging sector on the continent, holds great potential for rapidly increasing the amount of available protein. Aquaculture production in Africa expanded at an average annual rate of 11.7% between 2000 and 2012 (nearly twice the global average rate of 6.2% (FAO 2014). Given the spatial and environmental constraints, this will require improvements in efficiency, husbandry and increased investment in domestication and development of new species for commercial production, alongside the genetic improvement of existing commercial stocks. Initiatives to genetically improve fish for aquaculture have so far been quite limited. Of the 400 species cultured, 90 are domesticated, and, of these, only 18 (5%) have been the subject of significant genetic improvement programs (Teletchea and Fontaine 2014). Genetic improvement can also reduce the environmental footprint of aquaculture.

## 3.2 Optimizing the Utilization of Indigenous Crops, Livestock, Fish and Underutilized Foods

Africa has over 2000 plant species that include domesticated and semi-domesticated native grains, roots, fruits and vegetables. These are considered to be “lost” species for rediscovery and exploitation in modern food systems, owing to their natural health and nutritional benefits and a variety of adaptive and resilient properties (National Research Council 1996). Many indigenous crops have multiple edible parts such as leaves, fruit, seeds and roots. Many indigenous African livestock, fish and plant breeds are resilient to many risks and adverse growing conditions (Mabhaudhi et al. 2019). But they tend to be viewed as famine foods, foraged and turned to by the poor in adverse situations. Yet, many of these foods are described as
‘superfoods.’ Optimal utilization of nutritious indigenous and traditional foods holds the potential for diversifying Africa’s food systems, especially if more of these can be domesticated and produced in larger quantities. There is an urgent need to create pride in and demand for these foods and investment in research and technology development across the food system to integrate these resources into the daily food basket of African communities.

Although not widely adopted in Africa, biotechnology (techniques for improving plants, animals, and microorganisms) offers many opportunities to improve productivity, overcome abiotic (such as drought) and biotic stresses (diseases and pests), and save time and effort for farmers in Africa. For example, genetically modified crop varieties are labor-saving and reduce agricultural production's drudgery—especially for women, who are often saddled with more labor-intensive tasks such as weeding (Gouse et al. 2016). For instance, African farmers can benefit significantly from the adoption of Bt cotton. However, the share of farmers that stand to gain from the introduction of Bt cotton technology will be largely influenced by whether governments and technology innovators support appropriate incentives and address institutional and socio-economic barriers. Knowledge flows to and from farmers will play a critical role in the proper deployment of biotechnology (Falck-Zepeda et al. 2007). Furthermore, building the technical expertise in Africa to harness and safely deploy biotechnology for communities and the environment will be important.

Biotechnology can support food security in the face of major challenges such as declining per capita availability of arable land; lower productivity of crops, livestock and fisheries; heavy production losses due to biotic (insects, pests, weeds) and abiotic (salinity, drought, alkalinity) stresses; significant postharvest crop damage; and the declining availability of water. Biotechnology techniques that could be applied include tissue culture; marker-assisted selection, which entails the development of genetic markers to fast-track selection of natural traits in plant breeding; the “omics” (sciences such as genomics, proteomics and transcriptomics); the development of diagnostics; genetic modification; and a newer set of tools collectively referred to as the new plant breeding technologies (NASAC 2018).

## 3.3 Innovation in the Storage, Processing and Packaging of Foods

Transformation of the food system in Africa demands that we harness STI to promote product diversification with nutritious foods; processing to extend shelf life and make healthy foods easier to prepare; improved storage and preservation to retain nutritional value and ensure food safety; and innovations to extend seasonal availability and reduce postharvest losses (including aflatoxin) and food waste (Hendriks et al. 2021).
The emergence of the food processing sector is accompanied by a lengthening of agricultural value chains. From traditionally short chains limited to home-based processing and confined predominantly to rural areas, the changing value chains now primarily supply small towns and large urban centers with a range of branded, ready-to-cook or -eat foods (Conway et al. 2019). Urban-based value chains are fueled by the introduction of new processes for producing and distributing traditional foods outside of the household setting through specialized enterprises (Hawkes et al. 2017). This offers new employment opportunities in processing, distribution, packaging, and marketing across food value chains, as well as increased incomes for farmers. Strengthening the links between producers and processors is important to facilitate firm growth and benefit smallholder farmers.

Postharvest handling and technologies offer opportunities to reduce food losses and waste, particularly in the context of Africa, where cold chains and refrigeration are largely non-existent (MaMo 2019b) and seasonality leads to gluts and shortages of perishable goods. Many of these losses can be prevented through proper training and better handling of goods, the adoption of appropriate tools or technologies, sound policies and marketing-related improvements (Stathers et al. 2020). More investment is also needed in developing and making available solar driers and agro-processing equipment such as shellers and de-pulpers.

Food processing has the potential to contribute to the reduction of postharvest losses, enhancement of food safety and quality, creation of diversity, and stabilization of the food supply, reducing the prevalence of seasonal hunger and improving market access. Food processing can generate jobs and increase the retention of organic waste in farming areas. Even simple processing methods can transform perishable crops into a range of convenient, storable, value-added products, which meet the needs of expanding markets (Muyonga 2014).

Processing foods may smooth supplies, but can create deleterious health consequences (overweight, obesity and non-communicable diseases), depending on their ingredients (trans fats, high sugar and sugar alternatives, and excessive preservatives and other additives) (Pot et al. 2017). On the other hand, processing can also be used to create products that address specific nutrition needs. By blending staples and foods with complementary nutritional value and applying suitable processing procedures, it is possible to develop nutrient- and energy-enhanced foods to supplement prevailing nutritionally inadequate diets, particularly important for infants and young children.

Food safety is critical to the advancement of food systems. Poverty exacerbates the problem, since it leads to overdependence on one foodstuff and may lead to the consumption of contaminated foods because of the lack of alternatives (Shephard and Gelderblom 2014). Evidence on foodborne disease (FBD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still limited, but important studies in recent years have broadened our understanding. Most of the known burden of FBD disease in low- and middle-income countries comes from biological hazards, primarily from fresh, perishable foods sold in informal markets (Grace 2015). Testing is often expensive and constrains the approval, distribution and export of foods. The lack of suitable regulations to prevent food contamination, or their poor enforcement when
regulations exist (often applied to export goods, but not the domestic market), combined with the low levels of capacity for detecting food toxins, are serious concerns. Rapid and cheap out-of-laboratory analytical techniques designed for field conditions can offer solutions to these problems (Shephard and Gelderblom 2014). Examples are fluorescence spectrophotometry for quantifying mycotoxin levels in grains and raw groundnuts and the Lab-on-Mobile-Device (LMD) platform that can accurately detect mycotoxins using strip tests (Dobrovolny 2013).

More research and development is needed towards packaging solutions to extend the shelf-life of food, thereby reducing enzymatic activity and the growth of micro-organisms and preventing moisture loss and decay. Thermal processing has been widely employed in the food industry for food safety assurance and extending product shelf-life by inhibiting or deactivating microorganisms (Caminiti et al. 2011; Stoica et al. 2013). Other technologies that could have significant benefits for food safety in Africa include non-thermal inactivation technologies such as electromagnetic fields, pulsed electric fields, high-voltage discharge, pulsed light, ionizing radiation, microwaves and cold plasma (NASAC 2018). Hybrid technologies and combinations of these methods have not yet been applied to the indigenous food industry, but could hold promise for transforming African food systems.

## 3.4 Improving Human Nutrition and Health

Making more nutritious food options available to a wide range of consumers is another pathway to influencing nutritional outcomes. This can include public and private sector investment in research and innovation of technologies and processes that improve foods' nutritional value. Recent advances in gene sequencing technologies enable investigation of the complex gut biome at both the genetic and functional (transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolic) levels and can map microbiome variability between species, individuals and populations, providing new insights into the importance of the gut microbiome in human health (Brunkwall and Orho-Melander 2017). Together with studies of traditional diets that include a wide range of herbal, medicinal and fermented products from Africa's wealth of indigenous foods, these offer opportunities for understanding how foods and the gut biome interact to protect human health and immunity.

Food fortification initiatives such as salt iodization, adding vitamin A to cooking oil and multivitamin mixes to maize flour, as well as the bio-fortification of crops such as the varieties of vitamin-A-enriched orange-flesh sweet potato, offer options for reaching a high proportion of the population. More research is needed into which African crops could benefit from breeding programs for bio-fortification to diversify the food basket and preserve the genetic diversity of nutritious traditional crops. Breeding, processing and additives such as prebiotics and probiotics offer the potential for enhancing the bioavailability of nutrients for absorption and metabolism (Markowiak and Śliżewska 2017) or decreasing the concentration of
antinutrient compounds that may inhibit the absorption of nutrients (for example, phytates and oxalates) (Popova and Mihaylova 2019).

## 3.5 Addressing Equity and Vulnerability at the Community and Ecosystem Levels

Several socio-economic, cultural and demographic factors continue to drive inequalities among and within societies and limit the potential for some to benefit from actions aimed at improving livelihoods. This is coupled with political factors and decisions that are essential causes of inequality and power imbalances, severely constraining the ability of food system transformation to deliver sustained poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods in Africa (Neufeld et al. 2021a, b). These existing inequities are further exacerbated by conflict, protracted crises and climate change, while the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically exposed countries' pinch points and societies' vulnerabilities (Bron et al. 2021; MaMo Panel 2021). To ensure that food system transformation in Africa is not only sustainable, but also equitable, the structures that continue to enable and exacerbate inequities need to be urgently addressed.

One effective solution is to boost the opportunities and capacities of the most vulnerable, through redistributing resources more equitably (e.g., land, incomes, social protection), ensuring quality education, enabling progressive, and not regressive, taxation, and facilitating better targeted state infrastructure investments, among other approaches (Neufeld et al. 2021a, b). This must go hand in hand with decision-making that is more equitable and accountable to those who are most negatively affected by current food systems and their outcomes. Progress in advancing equitable livelihoods must hence be made in several key areas. According to Neufeld et al., this includes solutions that (i) are rights-based; (ii) ensure long-term investment for structural changes; (iii) directly inform local and national policy and programs; and (iv) enhance the development and equitable deployment of contextually relevant innovation and technology that better build on and learn from indigenous knowledge.

## 3.6 A Data Revolution for Improved Preparedness and Accountability Systems

The complex nature of food systems demands transdisciplinary collaboration and inter-sectoral governance. ICT can enhance learning among stakeholders, as well as between disciplines, to support innovation and the emergence of practical technologies that arise from transdisciplinary collaboration.
Evidence-based policies and planning require extensive and up-to-date data. There is an urgent need to strengthen national and regional institutional capacities for knowledge, data generation, and management that support evidence-based planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (Bahiigwa et al. 2016). ICT innovations also offer multiple opportunities for improving food systems that could support the establishment of “big data” systems, analysis and reporting of cross-sectoral data, and monitoring and evaluation of implementation. Therefore, more significant investment is needed in more and better data, and inclusive annual national and subnational reporting mechanisms need to be developed and implemented to assess progress on commitments for food security and nutrition outcomes and actions in a timely way (Hendriks et al. 2021).

Collecting, managing and reporting data requires extensive information systems. “Big data” systems offer opportunities to analyze vast datasets that reveal patterns, trends and associations, especially in multi-sectoral applications such as those seen in the SGDs and national performance and monitoring situations related to food systems through innovative approaches and algorithms. Some applications include fraud and risk detection and logistic planning in programs and price comparisons, as well as predictive and proactive health disease and health management systems (NASAC 2018).

Public awareness of the problems, hazards and solutions is essential. Cloud computing allows for crowdsourcing and the active participation of citizens in mutual accountability systems and the provision of highly disaggregated geo-referenced data that can play an important role in monitoring contexts such as climate change, disease patterns and early warning systems. Communication science offers opportunities for exploring how to deploy digital media and improve communication systems to share knowledge at all levels. The role of ICT in the rapid identification of pests and diseases and the mapping of their locations and spread are important tools for managing and mitigating the inherent risks they create (Christaki 2015) and for increasing the awareness and preparedness of farmers, especially as much of the African food chain is informal. Investment in qualified staff within government, extension, and supporting research institutes is crucial, with a particular need for investment in young researchers and entrepreneurs.

Comprehensive soil mapping is necessary to address the deficiencies through appropriate soil improvement practices and the cultivation of the most suitable crops for each area. Overlaying these with weather and crop suitability maps can provide hands-on information to farmers through mobile technology. Mobile technology could be used to improve early warning systems and the dissemination of knowledge. One example is the Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture, which can help farmers make informed decisions based on accurate, location-specific, climate and weather information combined with locally relevant crop, livestock and livelihood options and participatory tools (Dayamba et al. 2018).

Satellite Earth Observations, such as Africa Agriculture Watch, are novel opportunities born out of the ICT revolution that, combined with in-situ data, provide a source of consistent and reliable information to benefit the water, energy, and food
sectors. Such observations are necessary to begin understanding the complex feed-back processes between the natural environment and human activities (FAO 2014).

ICT can solve many of the current constraints around access to information, data analysis, predictions and early warning. Innovations in mobile technology can overcome many trade- and market-related information challenges, link farmers to markets and provide mutual communication among producers, consumers and researchers. ICT applications and advances in digital banking offer opportunities for solving some of these constraints.

Hence, the digitalization of the agriculture sector needs to be placed at the core of national agricultural growth and food system transformation agendas to harness its cross-cutting innovative strength. By developing national digital agriculture strategies along with required public investments, governments can set out solid long-term visions for the design, development, and use of new technologies along the food system value chain.

Digital innovation hubs create the innovation ecosystem that is needed to spur the digital transformation of Africa's food systems, while providing opportunities and support for young people in the development of locally suitable technologies and digital solutions. More investment and support need to be provided to create more innovation hubs across the continent that are dedicated to developing solutions focused on food system transformation.

Finally, to ensure that digital applications and services meet quality standards, research centers can play an active role in the evaluation and impact assessment of specific technologies and e-services in rural areas. This would allow governments and the private sector to bring to scale those programs and interventions that are proven impactful and beneficial to rural communities. Quality control and standard-setting of new technologies, digital tools, and services require the attention of business associations and governments.

## 3.7 Leveraging African Research and Science and Improving Education and Training

Food system transformation is a relatively new concept. As such, investment in research and development for the transformation of food systems in Africa needs to be significantly increased. One option is to develop an African funding base to support supranational research activities. Think tanks and research institutions need to be considered public goods that foster continued dialogue and supply of innovative approaches and solutions to the challenges that the food systems face. Crucially, African research institutions need to be equipped to support governments in developing their own evidence-based policy priorities and science, technology, and innovations for food system transformation, coupled with scalable solutions. This ought to occur in tandem with continued exchange and constructive dialogue with other regions in the world to improve public policy. The need for permanent
dialogue and exchanges calls for the creation of policy labs that allow for innovation and experimentation and learning from past failures.

## 3.8 Capacity Strengthening of Institutions and Mutual Accountability

Governments must be held accountable for their commitments to invest in integrated approaches and food system transformation. Mutual accountability country processes, including the Biennial Reviews and the agriculture Joint Sector Reviews, two major innovations under the CAADP agenda, remain critical for this. Mutual accountability will be crucial for improved policies and better outcomes around food system transformation and will ensure that policies respond to the needs of all stakeholders, including the vulnerable and marginalized.

To deliver on the ambitions and targets set out under the African Union Agenda 2063, CAADP and the SDGs, capacities for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation need to be strengthened. Poor institutional capacity has been identified as one of the major barriers to the successful implementation of the program. Countries will, therefore, need to invest more in building the requisite capacities to transform agriculture and food systems and commit to inclusive, technically rigorous, and comprehensive mutual accountability processes. The biennial review and the joint sector review processes hereby constitute best practice approaches that need to be built upon to encompass all elements of food system transformation.

# 4 Conclusions

As African governments embrace a food systems approach to policy design and implementation, specific attention needs to be paid to transforming food systems in a way that enhances nutrition outcomes, improves livelihoods and protects and enhances the environment. As this chapter shows, this can be achieved through policies and interventions targeted at food and agriculture trade, infrastructure development, finance, and science and technology for food systems, as well as capacity and skill strengthening. Science, technology and policy innovations offer many promising opportunities for food system transformation in Africa.

The chapter emphasizes the importance of evidence-based policies that understand and harness the synergies and trade-offs among food, health, water, energy and ecosystems, that provide alternative solutions for agricultural extension and advisory services, and that promote organizational innovations at the production, industry and downstream levels of supply chains that are lean, agile, resilient and green. Comprehensive and differentiated policy reforms for integrated food systems across Africa, as well as improvements in governance and management for better outcomes, are critical.
At the same time, modern science can unlock the potential and protect the heritage of Africa's nutritious food sources and ensure sustainable and diverse diets. Changing the path of future food systems in Africa will demand a structural transformation (transitioning from low productivity and labor-intensive economic activities to higher productivity and skill-intensive activities) of food systems and considerable value chain development. The mandate and operations of S&T institutions are necessary to enhance their contribution to the exploitation of S&T for sector transformation.

The context-specific essential STI and policy solutions relevant to transforming food systems in Africa relate to:

(a) Raising production efficiency and restoring and sustainably managing degraded resources

(b) Innovating in the storage, processing and packaging of foods

(c) Improving human nutrition and health

(d) Addressing equity and vulnerability at the community and ecosystem levels

(e) Fostering a data revolution for greater access to information and transparent monitoring and accountability systems

(f) Leveraging African research and science and improving education and training

(g) Strengthening the capacity of institutions and mutual accountability

The Food Systems Summit offers opportunities for stakeholders in African food systems to reflect on the role STI can play in transforming food system outcomes to improve the supply of safe and nutritious food for all while restoring and protecting the degradation of natural resources to ensure sustainability for future generations.

## References

Ahmadi E, McLellan B, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Tezuka T (2020) The role of renewable energy resources in sustainability of water desalination as a potential freshwater source: an updated review. Sustainability 2020(12):5233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135233

Al Shrouf A (2017) Hydroponics, Aeroponic and Aquaponic as compared with conventional farming. Am Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci (ASRJETS) 27(1):246–255

Allen T (2015) Changing demographics pulling up agriculture. GREAT Insights Mag 4(4). https://ecdpm.org/great-insights/territorial-development-2/changing-demographics-pulling-up-agriculture/

AUC/NEPAD (2008) Framework for the improvement of rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market access. New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), Johannesburg

Badiane O, Collins J, Ulimwengu JM (2020) Chapter 2: the past, present and future of agriculture policy in Africa. In: Resnick D, Diao X, Tadesse G (eds) 2020 Annual trends and outlook report: Sustaining Africa's agrifood system transformation: The role of public policies. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and AKADEMIYA2063, Washington, DC/Kigali, pp 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293946_02
Bahiigwa G, Benin S, Tafera W (2016) Tracking key CAADP indicators and implementation processes. In: Covic N, Hendriks S (eds) Achieving a nutrition revolution for Africa: the road to healthier diets and optimal nutrition, chapter 12, ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2016. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 170–178

Baumüller K, Admassie A, Hendriks S, Tadesse G, von Braun J (ed) (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)

Bindraban PS, van der Velde M, Ye L, Van den Berg M, Materechera S, Kiba DI, Tamene L, Ragnarsdóttir KV, Jongschaap R, Hoogmoed M, Hoogmoed W (2012) Assessing the impact of soil degradation on food production. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(5):478–488

Bron GM, Siebenga JJ, Fresco LO (2021) In the age of pandemics, connection food systems and health: a global one health approach. Food systems summit brief prepared by research Parners of the scientific Group of the Food Systems Summit. 2021

Brunkwall L, Orho-Melander M (2017) The gut microbiome as a target for prevention and treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: from current human evidence to future possibilities. Diabetologia 60:943–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-017-4278-3

Caminiti AM et al (2011) Impact of selected combinations of non-thermal processing technologies on the quality of an apple and cranberry juice blend. Food Chem 124:1387–1392

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

Christaki E (2015) New technologies in predicting, preventing and controlling emerging infectious diseases. Virulence 6(6):558–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2015.1040975

Conway G, Badiane O, Glatzel K (2019) Food for all in Africa: sustainable intensification for African farmers. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

Dayamba DS, Ky-Dembele C, Bayala J, Dorward P, Clarkson G, Sanogo, Mamadou LD, Traoré I, Diakité A, Nenkam A, Binam JN, Ouedraogo O, Zougmore R (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 Services 12:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cliser.2018.07.003

Del Pilar Molina-Portela M, Lugli EB, Recio-Pinto E, Raper J (2005) Trypanosome lytic factor, a subclass of high-density lipoprotein, forms cation-selective pores in membranes. Mol Biochem Parasitol 144(2):218–226

Dobrovolny M (2013) Smartphone app offers cheap aflatoxin test for farmers. Sci Dev Net news item, 4 November 2013. Accessed from http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/news/smartphone-app-offers-cheap-aflatoxin-test-for-farmers.html, 8 August 2017

Falck-Zepeda J, Horna D, Smale M (2007) The economic impact and the distribution of benefits and risk from the adoption of insect resistant (Bt) Cotton in West Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00718

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2020) The state of Food Security and nutrition in the world 2020. FAO, Rome

Gerber PJ et al (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome

Gopal M, Gupta A (2016) Microbiome selection could spur next-generation plant breeding strategies. Front Microbiol 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01971

Gouse M, Sengupta D, Zambrano Z, Zependa JF (2016) Genetically modified maize: less drudgery for her, more maize for him? Evidence from smallholder maize farmers in South Africa. World Dev 83:27–38
Grace D (2015) Food safety in low and middle income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(9):10490-11050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120910490

Hawkes C, Harris J, Gillespie S (2017) Chapter 4: Changing diets: Urbanization and the nutrition transition. In: 2017 Global Food Policy Report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, pp 34–41. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292529_04

Henderson BB et al (2015) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world's grazing lands: modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207: 91–100

Hendriks SL, Bekele E, Chaibi T, Hassan M, Miano DW, Muyonga JH (2021) The role of science, technology, and innovation for transforming Food Systems in Africa. Presented at the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021, Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems Summit, NY

Jayne T, Chamberlin J, Headey D (2014) Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: A synthesis. Food Policy 48:1–17

Kihara J et al (2016) Understanding variability in crop response to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 229:1–12

Kimera ZI, Mshana SE, Rweyemamu MM et al (2020) Antimicrobial use and resistance in food-producing animals and the environment: an African perspective. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 9:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-020-0697-x

Lowder S, Skoet J, Raney T (2016) The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev 87:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041

Mabhaudhi T, Vimbayi V, Chimonyo G, Hlahla S, Massawe F, Mayes S et al (2019) Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta 250:695–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03129-y

Maeda JM, Nkengasong JN (2021) The puzzle of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: perspective. Science 1-Jan-2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf8832

Maina KW, Ritho CN, Lukuyu BA, Rao EJO (2020) Socio-economic determinants and impact of adopting climate-smart Brachiaria grass among dairy farmers in eastern and Western regions of Kenya. Heliyon 6(6):e04335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04335

MaMo Panel (Malabo Montpellier Panel) (2019a) Byte by byte: policy innovation for transforming Africa's food system with digital technologies, Dakar. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896296848

MaMo Panel (Malabo Montpellier Panel) (2019b) Energized: policy innovations to power the transformation of Africa's agriculture and food system. MaMo Panel, Dakar

MaMo Panel (Malabo Montpellier Panel) (2020) Meat, Milk and more: policy innovations to shepherd inclusive and sustainable livestock systems in Africa. MaMo Panel, Dakar

MaMo Panel (Malabo Montpellier Panel) (2021) Connecting the dots: policy innovations for food systems transformation in Africa. MaMo Panel, Dakar

Markowiak P, Ślizewska K (2017) Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and Synbiotics on human health. Nutrients 9(9):1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091021

Mekonnen M, Hoekstra A (2012) A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15:401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8

Muyonga J (2014) Processing as a driver of agricultural development: the case of Makerere University Food Technology and Business Incubation Centre, Uganda. Accessed from http://knowledge.cta.int/Dossiers/S-T-Policy/Reshaping-tertiary-agricultural-education/Feature-articles/Processing-as-a-driver-of-agricultural-development-the-case-of-Makerere-University-Food-Technology-and-Business-Incubation-Centre-Uganda, 17 January 2017

NASAC (Network of Science Academies in Africa) (2018) Opportunities and challenges for research on food and nutrition security and agriculture in Africa. NASAC, Nairobi

National Research Council (1996) Lost crops of Africa: volume I: grains. The National Academies Press, Washington
Neufeld L, Hendriks SL, Hugas M (2021a) Healthy diet: A definition for the United Nations Food systems summit 2021. A paper from the scientific group of the UN Food systems summit. UN, New York

Neufeld L, Huang J, Badiane O, Caron P, Sennerby Forsse L (2021b) Advance equitable livelihoods. A paper from the scientific group of the UN Food systems summit. UN, New York

Nkonya EM, Koo J (2017) Chapter 8: The unholy cross: Profitability and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in Africa south of the Sahara. In: De Pinto A, Ulimwengu JM (eds) A thriving agricultural sector in a changing climate: Meeting Malabo Declaration goals through climate-smart agriculture. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, pp 103–113. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292949_08

Pereira L (2017) Climate change impacts on agriculture across Africa. In: Oxford research Encyclopedia of environmental science. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.292

Popova A, Mihaylova D (2019) Antinutrients in plant-based foods: a review. Open Biotechnol J 13: 68–76

Pot IJ, Braga B, Bo Q (2017) Ultra-processed Food intake and obesity: what really matters for health-processing or nutrient content? Curr Obes Rep 6(4):420–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-017-0285-4

Radwanska M et al (2008) Trypanosomiasis-induced B cell apoptosis results in loss of protective anti-parasite antibody responses and abolishment of vaccine-induced memory responses. PLoS Pathog 4(5):e1000078

Rao I et al (2015) Strategic management for forage production and mitigation of environmental effects: development of Brachiaria grasses to inhibit nitrification in soil. In: Evangelista AR, Avila CLS, Casagrande DR, Lara MAS, Bernades TF (eds) Preceedings of the 1st International Conference on Faorages in Warm Climates. Forages in Warm Climates. Prganising Committee of the 1st International Conference on Forages in Warm Climates and University of Lavras, Lavras, pp 85–102

Ringler C, Brent W (2020) Why the G20 needs to focus on energizing food systems in Africa. https://www.ifpri.org/blog/why-g20-needs-focus-energizing-food-systems-africa

Rocha I, Ying M, Souza-Alonso P, Vosatka M, Freitas H, Oliviera O (2019) Seed coating: A tool for delivering beneficial microbes to agricultural crops. Front Plant Sci 10:1357

Sandhu JS et al (2015) Recent trends in breeding of tropical grass and forage species. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Grassland Congress, New Delhi, pp 20–24

Sheahan M, Barrett CB (2017) Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 67:12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.010

Shephard GS, Gelderblom WCA (2014) Rapid testing and regulating for mycotoxin concerns: a perspective from developing countries. World Mycotoxin J 7(4):431–437

Stathers TH, Mvumi B, English A, Omotilewa O (2020) A scoping review of interventions for crop postharvest loss reduction in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asi. Nat Sustain 3:821–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00622-1

Stoica ML, Borda D, Alexe P (2013) Non-thermal novel food processing technologies. An overview. J Agroaliment Process Technol 19(2):212–217

Teletchea F, Fontaine P (2014) Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish Fish 15(2):181–195

Tittonell P, Giller K (2013) When yield gaps are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crop Res 143(1):76–90

Tschirley D, Haggblade S, Reardon T (2019) Africa’s emerging food system transformation. In: Global Center for Food Systems Innovation. White paper. Michigan State University, East Lansing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.04.009
Wiebe KD, Sulser TB, Mason-D'Croz D, Rosegrant MW (2017) Chapter 2: The effects of climate change on agriculture and food security in Africa. In: De Pinto A, Ulimwengu JM (eds) A thriving agricultural sector in a changing climate: Meeting Malabo Declaration goals through climate-smart agriculture. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, pp 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896292949_02

Wild S (2016) Quest to map Africa's soil microbiome begins. Nature 539(7628):152

Yaro M, Munyard KA, Stear MJ, Groth DM (2016) Combatting African animal trypanosomiasis (AAT) in livestock: the potential role of trypanotolerance. Vet Parasitol 225:43–52

Ziraba AK, Fotso JC, Ochako R (2009) Overweight and obesity in urban Africa: A problem of the rich or the poor? BMC Public Health 9:465. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-465

**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_146.png" /></figure>
# The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation for Transforming Food Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Elizabeth Hodson de Jaramillo, Eduardo J. Trigo, and Rosario Campos

## 1 Introduction

The transformation of food systems (FS) can produce huge benefits for health, food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture and nature. Central to this discussion is the understanding that FS are demand-led (IFPRI 2020) and represent the full agri-value chain, which includes growing, harvesting, processing, transporting, marketing, distributing, consuming and disposing of food and food-related items, plus the inputs needed and outputs produced at each of these steps. They integrate nutrition, health, resource use, biodiversity, transformation, jobs and livelihoods, all of which ideally should be covered under the concept of the SDGs. As an economic complex, they provide close to 1.3 billion jobs and account for the livelihoods of over 3.2 billion people around the world. In this sense, transforming FS becomes key, if not the main issue, for making real progress towards all 17 SDGs by 2030 (UN 2020). Science, technology and innovation (STI) offer a wide and expanding range of opportunities for making real progress towards these objectives. This paper looks at the issues involved, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).

E. Hodson de Jaramillo (✉)

Member of the Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences and of the Inter-American Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS), Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

e-mail: ehodson8@outlook.com

E. J. Trigo · R. Campos

IICA Technical Cooperation Directorate, Pilar, Argentina
## 2 IAP and IANAS Reports “Opportunities for Future Research and Innovation on Food and Nutrition Security and Agriculture”

The IAP report (2018) emphasizes the urgent need to mobilize financial and human resources to promote the shift towards more efficient and sustainable FS, an effort that demands profound changes in the way that food is produced and consumed, and the resulting waste disposed of. Collaboration between the natural and social sciences is required to find sustainable solutions to FS, as well as an efficient international science advisory mechanism. There is a wide range of scientific opportunities, and making the most of them is a wise public policy decision. Furthermore, all stakeholders must be included along the value chain in an integrated way.

The reports highlight that the transformation of FS requires a coordinated global approach to promoting the application of research to innovation, connections among disciplines and sectors, including cooperation with policies, and enhancement of scientific infrastructure with collaboration among countries, and recognizing the circular economy and the bioeconomy as two strategic areas for FS transformation (Lachman et al. 2020; IANAS 2018). Their main recommendations include: (a) promoting substantive changes towards climate-smart FS, (b) developing incentives for consumers to modify and improve their diets, (c) reducing food waste, (d) developing innovative foods, (e) increasing cooperation between the life sciences and the social sciences, as well as policy research on food, nutrition and agriculture, to translate advances into applied innovation, and (f) fostering international cooperation through advisory mechanisms (IANAS 2018; IAP 2018).

## 3 Food and Nutrition Aspects, Healthy Diets

In relation to nutritional aspects, the Americas present a picture of sharp contrast. The region has an exceptional abundance of natural resources, displaying considerable wealth in agrobiodiversity, arable land and the availability of water. These constitute major advantages for the future, and make the Americas the largest net food exporter in the world, as well as the largest producer of ecosystem services. The region makes vital contributions to several development objectives, including growth and trade promotion, poverty reduction, food and nutrition security, ecosystem services and climate resilience. Moreover, aquaculture is emerging as a major industry in a number of countries, such as Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Argentina and Ecuador (Morris et al. 2020; IANAS 2018). However, malnutrition, food insecurity, obesity and other related diseases coexist to a greater or lesser degree throughout the region. There has been a rise in hunger, with the number of undernourished people increasing by nine million between 2015 and 2019. Food insecurity in LAC went from 22.9% in 2014 to 31.7% in 2019, due to a sharp increase in
South America, and over 100 million people currently cannot afford a healthy diet (FAO 2020a).

For the transformation to sustainable and healthy diets, the research agenda related to food choices must explore alternative ways of influencing consumer behaviour (IAP 2018). Among the factors that define healthy diets are availability, affordability, and social and cultural issues. LAC's great agrobiodiversity and the potential of nutritious, but underutilized or neglected, indigenous crops represent a great opportunity for transformation towards sustainable systems, more balanced diets, and increased resource efficiency and resilience. High diversity in aquaculture in LAC provides wider opportunities for balanced diets (Hodson de Jaramillo et al. 2019).

## 4 Science and Technology and Food System Transformation

STI is essential for addressing the multidimensional nature of food security and FS. New and emerging technologies in the field of the biological sciences, information and communication, data sciences, artificial intelligence, and associated digital applications are significantly improving the production and productivity of crops and livestock and the quality of food and biomass. Advances in breeding provide means of developing disease-tolerant and environmentally friendly varieties of plants and animals. STI also contributes to improved resource use and waste reduction, as well as increasing the overall economic organization and competitiveness of FS (Basso and Antle 2020; Saiz-Rubio and Rovira-Más 2020; ECLAC et al. 2019; HLPE 2019; Trigo and Elverdin 2019; Rose and Chilvers 2018). In turn, the emerging concept of the circular bioeconomy – keeping renewable components and materials in the system during successive processes while protecting ecosystems using STI – makes it possible to improve productivity and the sustainable use of biological resources and to reduce waste. This approach allows for the development of new, high value-added bioproducts, such as nutraceuticals, biofortified foods, bio-inputs for agriculture, bioenergy and biomaterials for the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, chemical and other industries (Brandao et al. 2021). It generates a range of new services and attaches greater value to biodiversity, for example, through integrated pest management based on biological pesticides and fertilizers. It contributes to an increase in the efficiency of converting biological resources for food, feed, soil health, and other uses by improving biorefinery processes (Trigo et al. 2021; Lachman et al. 2020; ECLAC et al. 2019).

The current STI scenarios for FS transformation offer very concrete opportunities to contribute to the SDGs, particularly to: SDG 1 (Reduce poverty), SDG 2 (Reduce hunger), 3 (Good health and well-being), 6 (Clean water and sanitation), 7 (Affordable and clean energy), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 9 (Industry,
innovation and infrastructure), 12, (Responsible production and consumption), 13 (Climate action), and 15 (Life on land).

These STI scenarios play a key role in the provision of sustainable agricultural development, climate resilience, the production of healthy nutritious foods, and a guarantee of global food security. New developments in agricultural technology will play a leading role in moving our FS towards more sustainable schemes (Trigo and Elverdin 2019). Biotechnology has evolved more efficient and faster ways of doing research in breeding programs in agriculture that, combined with digital technologies, potentiate agricultural advances to produce more with less, innovations that are, in turn, being proactively reflected throughout the FS (Virginia Tech 2020).

Global agriculture is undergoing major transformations through the convergence of digital, biological and engineering technologies (ECLAC 2021; Basso and Antle 2020; Santos Valle and Kienzle 2020; Rose and Chilvers 2018), to optimize agricultural production processes and input utilization in the so-called Agriculture 4.0. The adoption of the new technological strategies must be prudent and based on transparent, inclusive and participatory social processes, adapted to local conditions, capacities and cultures (ECLAC et al. 2019). To define priorities, the participation of local communities is essential, and should promote a convergence of scientific and traditional knowledge (Herrero et al. 2020). The pace of the innovations can be increased, with the appropriate policies, incentives, regulations and social acceptance (Fanzo et al. 2020).

At the level of specific technologies, the range of possibilities is extremely wide, although two essential concepts stand out: greater precision and efficiency for the purpose of producing more with less in a sustainable context (ECLAC et al. 2019; Trigo and Elverdin 2019):

* Rapid and efficient improvement systems, based on the use of genomic information, generational acceleration, and molecular techniques like gene editing.

* Crop sensors connected to mobile devices that allow for evaluating input (fertilization, water needs) at precise times and scales.

* Crop health monitoring systems and biological and artificial intelligence mechanisms, which will allow for a reduction of chemicals in the control of pests and diseases.

* Virtual strategies for the dissemination of management techniques adjusted by locality/region, to significantly increase the integrated management of crops.

* Livestock biometrics; use of collars and other devices to collect real-time information about the behavior, feeding habits, and general condition of the animals.

* Precision agriculture, which integrates agroecological and productive information with information and communication technologies (ICT), proposing management strategies for optimizing the use of inputs, including improvements in the efficient use of water and the use of sensors for the micro-administration of irrigation.

In addition, there are significant advances in the use of beneficial soil microorganisms in agriculture, and an application of the microbiome that can provide higher and more sustainable levels of productivity improvements, food quality and profitability
(Singh et al. 2020; FAO 2019). Strong international cooperation in microbiome science is essential for achieving efficient microbiome-based innovations (D'hondt et al. 2021).

# 5 A Perspective from Latin America and the Caribbean

The LAC region is not only a great producer of sustainable biomass; it has also become one of the main actors in international markets due to important developments in its scientific-technological capacities, industrial infrastructure and bioenergy generation. Several significant technology developments provide a platform of great importance for facing future challenges. These not only include traditional and export crops, but also agricultural biotechnology applications, conservation and regenerative agriculture and sustainable livestock production systems (ECLAC et al. 2019; Trigo and Elverdin 2019). In biotechnology applications, the region has been one of the early leaders in the adoption of agricultural biotechnology (GM crops) (www.isaaa.org). There are successful public-private initiatives resulting in close-to-market developments in strategic crops such as soybeans, common beans, potatoes and wheat, and, more recently, in rice, through the application of gene editing technologies (ECLAC et al. 2019; Oliva et al. 2019).

Another development worth mentioning is the emergence of a new generation of young entrepreneurs, developing technologies and start-ups in several countries (e.g., Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay). These are beginning to have an impact on the regional bioeconomy landscape, and are creating new pathways for scientific effort that benefits the region. A non-comprehensive list includes:

* Protera. A Chilean biostartup developing safe, sustainable, and smart protein-based food ingredients with Artificial Intelligence applied to synthetic biology (https://www.proterabio.com/technology).

* Hemoalgae. A Costa Rican biostartup developing high value-added chemical compounds using microalgae-based production platforms (http://hemoalgae.com/).

* Nutriyé. A Mexican biostartup developing functional beverages using nutraceutics and natural biological compounds and exploring the potential of personalized nutrition (http://www.nutriye.com/).

* Syocin Biotech. An Argentinian startup developing synthetic biology platforms to redesign and produce biomolecules that target plant bacterial pathogens (http://syocin.com/).

* Sciphage. A Colombian startup developing bacteriophage-based solutions for treating bacterial infections in poultry and reducing the use of antibiotics. (https://sciphage.com/).

* Eficagua. A Chilean biostartup developing solutions for optimizing the use of water in agriculture (https://eficagua.cl/).
* Oxcem. A Peruvian biostartup creating microalge-based systems to address air pollution in big cities (https://oxcem.com).

* Scintia. A Mexican biostartup developing innovative tools to make biotechnol-
ogy and synthetic biology more accessible (https://www.scintia.com/).

In the case of conservationist and regenerative agriculture, reduced tillage practices have been adopted in a wide diversity of production systems (ECLAC et al. 2019). There are also important initiatives directed at highlighting the strategic character of soils, such as IICA’s “Living Soils of the Americas,” which seeks to connect public and private efforts in the fight against soil degradation and to maintain the health of cultivated land, as well as fostering efficient management and conservation of soils (https://iica.int/en/press/news/rattan-lal-and-iica-launch-living-soils-americas-initia-tive). As mentioned, crop diversification using local varieties is a strategy for facing climate change, improving nutrition and increasing resilience (ECLAC et al. 2019).

LAC countries are highly vulnerable to climate change because of their socio-economic, geographic and institutional characteristics (ECLAC-UNDR 2021), a very important factor within the agricultural sector. Natural disasters such as flooding, storms and landslides are increasing, and several international agencies (UNEP, WFP, CGIAR) are working to promote climate resilience, reforestation and restoration. For instance, the mandate of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and trade-offs among climate change, agriculture and food security. Some results are presented in an Inventory of CSA practices in LAC climate-smart villages (Bonilla-Findji et al. 2020). Some studies show that, by implementing integrated soil and water management strategies, smallholder family farms can become resilient to climate change (Roop and St. Martin 2020).

The Caribbean region economies are dependent largely on tourism (ECLAC-UNDR 2021), and almost all of the Caribbean countries are net food importers, despite having arable lands, rich agrobiodiversity and favorable growing conditions. As agricultural production declined in 2018, the Caribbean Community formulated a strategic plan to promote sustainable food production and reduce import dependency through the innovation and modernization of agriculture (https://caricom.org/). The objectives are increased employment, poverty alleviation, reduction in the import bill, food and nutrition security and a reversal of the growing incidence of chronic non-communicable diseases. CARDI will promote the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by pursuing effective partnerships, capacity-building opportunities and information generation and dissemination (CARDI 2018).

The expanding aquaculture industry (the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, mollusks, crustaceans and aquatic plants) can provide more sustainable animal source foods (Gephart et al. 2021) and is contributing to the regional economy through more than 200,000 direct employments and 500,000 indirect ones. In 2018, aquaculture in the Americas produced 3,799,191 tons of animal and 21,984 tons of plant material (FAO 2020b).

Despite these important developments, the overall picture in the region is one of concern, as a majority of the countries in LAC, particularly the smaller ones, are on
the sidelines. They reflect a substantial diversity among national agricultural research systems, infrastructure, investments in human capital, financing capabilities and the roles of public and private sectors in S&T. In terms of investments, five countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico) account for more than 90% of the regional investment (Stads et al. 2016). The same trend is observed when investment is presented in terms of a percentage of the countries' agricultural GDP. Only six countries and one region – Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico and the Anglophone Caribbean – invest more than 1% (Stads et al. 2016). These figures are closely associated with the productivity gaps that are becoming increasingly evident between the region and the rest of the world, and between tropical and temperate areas (Nim-Pratt et al. 2015). They are also in marked contrast with other countries with relevant agricultural sectors, such as Canada, where investment in agricultural R&D as a percentage of agricultural GDP amounted to 11.3% (2009), or in Australia, where it exceeded 12.5% (2011) (OECD 2018).

A similar picture is seen with investments in and capacity for the biosciences. At best, most countries are in the early stages of effectively using new technologies, with significant investments concentrated in a small number of the larger countries, so that much of the region's agriculture risks losing the benefits of the new technologies. Close to 90% of total investments and applications in biotechnology in LAC were in Brazil (>50%), Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile and Colombia (Trigo et al. 2010). These low and concentrated investment levels are also reflected in the availability of human resources, an issue that is perhaps more strategic due to the increasing complexity of the situations to be faced. (Stads et al. 2016).

## 6 Lessons from COVID-19

The confinements and disruptive effects caused globally by COVID-19 have demonstrated the enormous fragility of our agrifood systems, stressing the need for FS transformation (UN 2020). The pandemic caused disruptions to global food supply, stressing the crucial importance of LAC as a provider of food, and pointed to the need for promoting greater intra-regional economic cooperation, in terms of production, trade and technology (Morris et al. 2020). In this sense, the current crisis is a unique opportunity to change the false claims that economic growth is in conflict with environmental sustainability, and to apply the bioeconomy approach for territorial development with circular systems and greater resilience for the benefit of society and the planet (Trigo et al. 2021; Lachman et al. 2020). In most LAC countries, FS responded well and was able to continue providing food throughout the crisis, with a rapid emergence of alternative distribution and marketing systems, through partnerships and use of the internet (IICA 2021).

However, as in other parts of the world, the pandemic has triggered recession and declines in income, especially for poor people, and due to some disruptions in the food chain, vulnerable groups suffered with respect to food security and nutrition. For example, young people in LAC have had difficulty accessing healthy foods such
as fruits and vegetables, compounded by decreased physical activity and an increase
in the consumption of sugary drinks, snacks and fast foods (León and Arguello 2021). The use of ICT and e-trade have grown rapidly. Overall, the insights and
lessons from the pandemic should help in designing better policies and building
more resilient and inclusive FS for the future. (Swinnen and Mcdermott 2020).
Looking to the future, a key issue to be confronted will be the fiscal consequences
of COVID-19, as many countries are already making significant cuts in their R&D
investments, imposing new restrictions on already poorly-financed science and
technology systems (IICA 2021).

7 Moving Forward: Strengthening Policy in LAC
for Research and Its Uptake

Present STI scenarios offer an extensive and strategic set of opportunities and instruments for FS transformation. However, in most cases, existing institutions and orientations reflect past situations and priorities (Morris et al. 2020), and this is a negative factor for effectively mobilizing resources towards transformative Agenda 2030 objectives. Increasing investment levels is a common requirement for all countries, but beyond that, there is an urgent need for institutional structure and organizational approach that better reflects the new environment. The following paragraphs offer some reflections on specific topics and areas of work to consider for this purpose.

## 7.1 The Institutional Framework for the Innovation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology

STI alone cannot achieve all of the advances in FNS required for the future. Developments, combined with evidence-based policy, must be implemented in the Americas. There is a need for better integration of STI progress and investment opportunities into national policymaking and communicating its potential to the public (IANAS 2018). R&D institutions should address sustainable whole FS in an integrated way and along interconnected value chains (HLPE 2019). Achieving sustainable FS will require the full support of diverse policies: agricultural, trade and exchange, related to resources such as land and water, education, labor, financing, and all aspects connected to human health and safety, as well as permanent incentives. The goal is to deliver sustainable growth, good jobs, food and nutrition security, and climate-resilient ecosystem services (Morris et al. 2020).

Conventional approaches have resulted in “silo institutional approaches” (Trigo and Elverdin 2019), which is not the most appropriate way to face the complex challenges posed by FS transformation. There is a need to incorporate new actors
into the process and facilitate interaction between biological sciences and other areas
of knowledge. There is little tradition of cooperation; therefore, advancing integra-
tion mechanisms around common objectives is a priority. Reconfiguring the rela-
tionship between scientific research and local knowledge systems is essential for
creation of the necessary innovative transition pathways adapted to each type of
agricultural and FS (HLPE 2019).

## 7.2 Work and Investment Priorities

In general, R&D priorities have been highly focused on solving production prob-
lems, improving resource management, and, above all, maintaining a “short vision”
of the agricultural and livestock sector (Stads et al. 2016). The new scenarios
demand a broader agenda, going beyond production to integrate issues related to
sustainability, the entire supply chain value, quality, nutrition, energy production
and industrial use of biomass (HLPE 2019). Agriculture and FS offer opportunities
to generate significant numbers of high-quality jobs. It is imperative to direct
investment toward sectors that are strategic for the big push, which also have a
high potential for job creation (ECLAC 2021). When technology meets a recognized
need and is cost-effective for the intended beneficiary, uptake can be rapid (Fanzo
et al. 2020). At the same time, experiential learning and knowledge-sharing among
practitioners, and the co-production of knowledge among multi-stakeholder net-
works, should be recognized as effective approaches for generating the type of
innovations well adapted to the local context that are needed, and enhancing their
rapid adoption (HLPE 2019).

## 7.3 Dealing with the Distributional Effects of the New
Scenarios and Public Policies

Technological change has consequences and effects on the competitiveness of the
sector. Innovation must be complemented by policies and actions specifically aimed
at ensuring the equitable participation of all sectors involved, particularly those
sectors of small-scale family agriculture with restrictions in terms of availability of
resources and/or access to infrastructure or services. In this regard, agenda priorities
should consider: (i) policies and actions aimed at promoting more equitable access to
new technologies (credits, training, development of strategic infrastructures, subsi-
dies to providers of certain technological services, etc.); (ii) the strengthening of
national research and development institutions to increase their effectiveness in
helping to correct existing market failures affecting equitable access to new
technologies.
## 7.4 Improved International Cooperation Mechanism

The nature of FS calls for an integrated and multi-disciplinary approach that includes aspects related to the use of natural resources and the adoption of new technologies, as well as the issues related to food demand and human behavior. Policies must respond to local conditions, capacities and cultures and consider vulnerable groups, but they must also be coordinated with global trends (Fears et al. 2020). To take advantage of the transformative potential of technology, it is essential to develop national/regional innovation ecosystems, with the support mechanisms and necessary infrastructure to promote the high levels of agricultural innovation required for the future through the promotion of regional and international cooperation (HLPE 2019).

In many countries, there are several limitations to accessing the benefits of new technologies and calls for improved cooperation mechanisms aimed at pooling capacities and technology-sharing. This requires a more complex R&D agenda that gives greater importance to basic research in innovation processes, as well as the generalization (and internationalization) of protection frameworks for the intellectual property of the new technologies. This is particularly the case for smaller tropical countries, where scale is not only affected by the size of their economies, but also because they often have greater agroecological diversity. In this context, when thinking about future strategy, the question of the size of economies and how that is reflected in capabilities, investment and the scale of work of research institutions is an unavoidable issue. Related to this, the construction of solid linkage networks with regional public R&D systems and agricultural extension, and with the private sector, becomes fundamental when it comes to achieving greater efficiencies.

## References

- Basso B, Antle J (2020) Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat Sustain 3(4):254–256

- Bonilla-Findji O, Alvarez-Toro P, Martinez-Baron D, Lopez C, Álvarez O, Castellanos A, Martínez JD (2020) Latin America climate-smart villages AR4D sites: 2020 inventory. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Wageningen. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/111398

- Brandão AS, Gonçalves A, Santos JMRCA (2021) Circular bioeconomy strategies: from scientific research to commercially viable products. J Clean Prod 295:126407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126407

- CARDI-Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (2018) Building a productive and resilient regional agriculture sector. Cardi Strategic Plan:2018–2022. Available at: www.cardi.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2018/05/CARDI-Strategic-Plan-2018-to-2022-Final.pdf

- D'hondt K, Kostic T, McDowell R et al (2021) Microbiome innovations for a sustainable future. Nat Microbiol 6:138–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-00857-w
ECLAC, FAO & IICA (2019) The Outlook for agriculture and rural development in the Americas: a perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean 2019–2020. Available at: https://www.agrirural.org/en

ECLAC-Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (2021) Building forward better: action to strengthen the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (LC/FDS.4/3/Rev.1), Santiago, 2021. Available at: https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/46696/S2100124_en.pdf

ECLAC-UNDRR (2021) The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an opportunity for a systemic approach to disaster risk for the Caribbean. Available at: http://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/46732/S2000944_en.pdf

Fanzo J, Covic N, Dobermann A, Henson S, Herrero M, Pingali P, Staal S (2020) A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. Global. Food Security 26:100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100397

FAO (2019) Microbiome: the missing link? Science and innovation for health, climate and sustainable food systems. Available at: www.fao.org/3/ca6767en/CA6767EN.pdf

FAO (2020a) The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2020/en/

FAO (2020b) FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2018/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des pêches et de l'aquaculture 2018/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca y acuicultura 2018. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1213t

Fears R, Canales Holzeis C, Ter Meulen V (2020) Designing inter-regional engagement to inform cohesive policy making. Palgrave Commun 6:107. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0487-3

Gephart JA, Golden CD, Asche F, Belton B, Brugere C, Froehlich HE, Fry JP, Halpern BS, Hicks CC, Jones RC, Klinger DH, Little DC, McCauley DJ, Thilsted SH, Troell M, Allison EH (2021) Scenarios for global aquaculture and its role in human nutrition. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 29(1): 122-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342

Herrero M, Thornton P, Mason-D'Croz D, Palmer J, Benton T, Bodirsky B, Bogard J, Hall A, Lee B, Nyborg K, Pradhan P, Bonnett G, Bryan B, Campbell BM, Christensen S, Clark M, Cook M, Boer IJM, Downs C, West P (2020) 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

HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-14_EN.pdf

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. Bogotá: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. ISBN 978-958-781-378-4. Available at: https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/43705

IANAS (2018) Opportunities and challenges for research on food and nutrition security and agriculture in the Americas. Regional analysis prepared from country assessments by IANAS. ISBN 978-607-8379-29-3. Available at: https://www.ianas.org/docs/books/Opportunities_challenges.html

IAP - InterAcademy Partnership (2018) Opportunities for future research and innovation on food and nutrition security and agriculture. The InterAcademy Partnership's global perspective. Synthesis by IAP based on the four regional academy network studies. ISBN 978-88-940784-5-9. Available at: www.interacademies.org/publication/opportunities-future-research-and-innovation-food-and-nutrition-security-and

IFPRI (2020) Global food policy report: building inclusive food systems. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293670

IICA (2021) La I+D y la transformación del sistema alimentario: una contribución del Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) a la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021 de las Naciones Unidas. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, San Jose Costa Rica (forthcoming)
Lachman J, Bisang R, De Obschatko ES, Trigo E (2020) Bioeconomía: una estrategia de desarrollo para la Argentina del siglo XXI. Impulsando a la bioeconomía como modelo de desarrollo sustentable: entre las políticas públicas y las estrategias privadas/Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura – Argentina: IICA, 2020. ISBN 978-92-9248-899-4

León K, Arguello JP (2021) Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescent and youth nutrition and physical activity. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/lac/en/effects-of-covid-19-pandemic-on-adolescent-and-youth-nutrition-and-physical-activity

Morris M, Sebastian AR, Perego VME, Nash JD, Diaz-Bonilla E, Pineiro V, Laborde D, Chambers TT, Prabhala P, Arias J, De Salvo CP, Centurion ME (2020) Future foodscapes: re-imagining agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean (English). World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/942381591906970569/Future-Foodscapes-Re-imagining-Agriculture-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean

Nin-Pratt A, Falconi C, Ludena C, Martel P (2015) Productivity and the performance of agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: from the lost decade to the commodity boom, IDB working papers series N° 608. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC

OECD (2018) Agricultural policy monitoring and evaluation 2018. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2018-en

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0267-z

Roop R, ST. Martin C.C.G. (2020) Building climate resilience of smallholder family farms by implementing integrated soil and water management strategies in Trinidad and Tobago. In: Leal FW, Luetz J, Ayal D (eds) Handbook of climate change management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_92-1

Rose DC, Chilvers J (2018) Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming front. Sustain Food Syst 2:87. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087

Saiz-Rubio V, Rovira-Más F (2020) From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: a review on crop data management. Agronomy 10:207. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020207

Santos Valle S, Kienzle J (2020) Agriculture 4.0 – agricultural robotics and automated equipment for sustainable crop production. Integrated crop management series, vol 24. FAO, Rome

Singh BK, Trivedi P, Egidi E et al (2020) Crop microbiome and sustainable agriculture. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:601-602. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00446-y

Stads G, Beintema N, Pérez S, Flaherty K, Falcioni C (2016) Investigación Agropecuaria en Latinoamérica y el Caribe. Un análisis de las instituciones, la inversión y las capacidades entre países. ASTI/BID

Swinnen J, Mcdermott J (2020) Covid-19 and global food security. EuroChoices 19(3):26-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12288

Trigo E, Elverdin P (2019) Los sistemas de investigación y transferencia de tecnología agropecuaria de América Latina y el Caribe en el marco de los nuevos escenarios de ciencia y tecnología. 2030 – Alimentación, agricultura y desarrollo rural en América Latina y el Caribe, No. 19. FAO, Santiago de Chile, p 18

Trigo E, Falck Zepeda J, Falconi C (2010) "Biotecnología agropecuaria para el desarrollo en América Latina: Oportunidades y Retos", Documentos de Trabajo LAC 01/10, Programa de Cooperación, FAO/Banco Inter-Americano de Desarrollo, Servicio para América Latina y el Caribe. División del Centro de Inversiones

Trigo E, Chavarria H, Pray C, Smyth SJ, Torriba A, Wessler J, Zilverman D, Martinez JF (2021) The bioeconomy and food systems transformation. FSS Briefs by Partners of Scientific Group. https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FSS_Brief_Bioeconomy_and_Food_Systems_Transformation.pdf

United Nations (2020) Policy brief: the impact of COVID-19 on food security nutrition. United Nations, 2020

Virginia Tech (2020) Productivity in times of pandemics, global agricultural productivity report. Executive summary. College of Agriculture and Live Sciences, Virginia Tech. https://globalagriculturalproductivity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2020-GAP_Report_ExecSummary-1.pdf
**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_148.png" /></figure>
# The Role of Science, Technology, and Innovation for Transforming Food Systems in Asia

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Paul J. Moughan, Daniel A. Chamovitz, S. Ayyappan, Morakot Tanticharoen, Krishan Lal, and Yoo Hang Kim

## 1 Introduction

It is now widely accepted that there is an imperative to transform food systems to provide guaranteed supplies to everyone of nutritious, healthy foods that are produced and distributed in a sustainable manner, for a rapidly growing world population (Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 2019; FAO and WHO 2019; Fanzo

P. J. Moughan (✉)

Riddet Institute, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

e-mail: P.J.Moughan@massey.ac.nz

D. A. Chamovitz

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel

S. Ayyappan

Central Agricultural University, Imphal, Manipur, India

Karnataka Science & Technology Academy, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

M. Tanticharoen

King Mongkut's University of Technology Thornburi, Bangkok, Thailand

National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Bangkok, Thailand

K. Lal

The Academy Partnership (IAP) for Science, The Global Network of Science Academies, Trieste, Italy

The Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences of Asia (AASSA), Seongnam-si, South Korea

Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, India

National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, India

Y. H. Kim

The Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia (AASSA), Seongnam-si, South Korea
et al. 2020a; Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020; GNR 2020; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 2020a).

A consensus view is one thing, but what is now required is **action**.

This chapter focusses primarily on the role of science, technology and innovation (STI), including research and development (R&D), education and extension, in transforming the food systems of Asia and the Pacific. The chapter draws heavily on the IAP report published in 2018: “Opportunities and challenges for research on food and nutrition security (FNS) and agriculture in Asia,” but updated to include new perspectives. The working group responsible for the latter report was convened under the auspices of the Association of Academies and Societies of Sciences in Asia (AASSA). The approach was a “bottom-up” analysis of projected FNS in the region with respect to population growth and related demographics, projected regional trends in malnutrition in all its forms, climate change, resource depletion, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Experts from scientific academies across the region made up the working group, and each expert provided information and insight for their country or region. This facilitated synthesis of the material to allow for common themes to be developed and general, as well as specific, conclusions to be made. One strength of the inter-science academy approach was that it drew upon expertise from a broad range of relevant scientific disciplines from across a wide geographical area. This allowed for the identification of scientific and technical issues and opportunities not only at the global and regional levels, but also at a national and sometimes sub-national level, reflecting the great diversity between and within countries, sectors and populations.

## 2 The Overarching Framework for Developing Inclusive, Sustainable Food and Nutrition Systems

Globally, a considerably greater quantum of food and a more diverse array of food types need to be produced and distributed equitably to ensure a balanced diet that adequately nourishes a projected population of around 9 million persons by year 2050. This is against a current backdrop in which around 1 billion people are undernourished, many more suffer from ‘hidden hunger,’ whereby they receive inadequate amounts of vitamins and minerals, and where, in many countries, there is an escalating prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

This required increase in the production of foods must occur in the face of several constraints. The land area available for agriculture is unlikely to increase in the future, and may well decline because of the demands of urbanisation, conservation, bio-ecology and land loss from sea-level rises caused by global warming. Limitations in the supply of other vital resources (e.g., fossil fuels, fertiliser and water) are also likely to pose a challenge. Future food increases will need to be sustainable, environmentally, economically, culturally and socially, and will occur in the face of
unpredictable outcomes that are consequent upon climate change. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 offer an important framework for addressing the challenge of the global food supply, but, if these goals are to be met, evidence-based science will be a necessary prerequisite.

The production and supply of food follow a complex web of interacting processes and systems. Agriculture and food production are part of a widely interconnected multi-functional landscape or agri-ecosystem (German et al. 2017). To achieve sustainable production, the wider ramifications of changes to the systems need to be assessed and understood and inevitable trade-offs reconciled.

A systems analytical approach is paramount to identifying impediments to FNS and providing workable holistic solutions. A wide range of both technical and non-technical factors (including purchasing power, barriers to trade, capital investment, infrastructure, government policies, cultural mores, demographic shifts, political and social stability, equity of access, gender equality and education) is relevant. Not wishing to undermine the importance of these non-technical factors, it is beyond doubt that science, technology and related innovation (SIT) will be critical in addressing FNS. The production of food in a sustainable manner, the processing and storage of food, the minimisation of food wastage and the development of healthy diets adapted to local conditions and populations are of paramount importance. The application of current scientific knowledge through improved education and extension practices, the development of new scientific knowledge in targeted areas, and related technological developments will all be essential in terms of meeting the global food challenge.

In the AASSA (2018) report on FNS for Asia, the need to focus STI efforts so as to provide high-quality relevant evidence was emphasised, a contention echoed recently by the Committee on World Food Security (2019) and Fanzo et al. (2020b).

The approach taken by the IAP Working Group was to use national and regional statistics for Asia and the Pacific on projected population growth, population age distributions, economic development and current estimates of under- and over-nutrition to allow for a focus on countries and geographical areas that are most likely in the future to face the harshest FNS issues. A strategy moving forward would be to use ‘systems analysis’ to identify key impediments to FNS in these areas, the same analysis also being used to prioritise extension, education, and research and development (Stathers et al. 2020; Ricciadi et al. 2020). The report emphasises the need for a territorial dimension in such an analysis, recognising often profound differences between geographical areas and socio-economic groupings. The territorial approach to investigating FNS implies a shift from a sectoral (usually agricultural production), top-down, ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to one that is multi-sectoral, bottom-up and context-specific. Food systems must be inclusive of marginalised people and small holders (IFPRI 2020a, b), as should STI and education.

The work has identified several countries within the region that are at high risk for future impediments to FNS. Countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal and Myanmar, as well as the Philippines, Tajikistan, Iraq and Yemen,
are deemed to be particularly high risk countries for future impediments to FNS. This
is not to say that other countries in the region are free from future issues concerning
FNS; rather, it gives us a rational starting point as to where work may be most
effective.

There is no doubt that both the global and Asian food supplies will be required to increase significantly over the next three decades. The required increase in net food supply may involve reducing food wastage and effects on the demand side brought about by changing food consumption patterns, but will also involve producing more food from existing agricultural land. This will require both closing existing yield gaps and increasing food production from land that is currently considered to be yielding at a high level, through further intensification. Intensive agricultural production is already associated with environmental costs, however, through side effects such as nutrient runoff and the eutrophication of waters, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil erosion and soil degradation, as well as resource costs such as depletion of water and fertiliser reserves. Future farm production will be expected to reduce these negative environmental impacts. ‘Sustainable intensification’ will be needed, and this will require a step-change in STI (Pretty 2008; Parker et al. 2014). China is already making progress in this domain (Cui et al. 2018) Clearly, increased production per plant or animal, in a sustainable manner, is beneficial in that it reduces the amount of waste material (e.g., methane) per unit of production (e.g., kilograms of grain or meat). Over recent years, there has been a renewed interest in bioecological agriculture and circular agriculture, in which an ecological harmony is sought, and resource use is optimised and solid wastes and gaseous emissions are minimised due to capture and re-use. Research in this direction is encouraged, though it is recognised that bioecological agriculture and intensive farming are not mutually exclusive systems. Traditional mixed framing models of intensive agriculture may already incorporate principles inherent in bioecological farming (e.g., crop rotations, animal/crop/pasture balance, the use of tree shelter belts, nitrogen fixation via leguminous crops and clovers, minimal tillage, integrated pest management).

Although the IAP Working Group strongly promoted the clear identification of
gaps in knowledge that are currently creating impediments to lifting and diversifying
food production as a critical starting point for renewed and refreshed STI effort, they
also recognised that there are certain areas of contemporary science whereby invest-
ment in R&D is likely to yield immediate and widespread dividends. These areas
included: (1) sustainable farming practices addressing wider issues, such as biodi-
versity, land and water degradation and climate change, that would include
bioecological approaches; (2) genomic-based approaches (including molecular
markers for selection and CRISPR/Cas9 technologies) to plant and animal breeding;
(3) ‘big data’ capture and analysis, precision agriculture, robotics, artificial intelli-
gence; (4) food technology innovations in harvesting, processing and storage to
reduce wastage promote more equitable distribution of safe non-perishable food and
lead to healthier processed foods; (5) aquaculture production and integrated farm
production systems.
## 3 Delivering Healthy Diets

For achieving FNS in the future, calorie provision alone will not be sufficient. Rather, it will be required that a broad range of diverse foods be provided so as to meet the requirements for all dietary nutrients and non-nutrient food components known to influence human health. Just what constitutes a healthy diet is a 'moving target', and research is required to establish scientifically what constitutes healthy diets for different socio-cultural groupings and regions. Currently, for example, there is controversy over the role of saturated fats in health (Bier 2016) and over the risk of consuming unprocessed red meat in the development of bowel cancer (Alexander and Cushing 2011).

The classical approach in nutritional science has been reductionist, whereby the nutrients found in foods are considered the fundamental unit of nutrition. This concept has been challenged more recently, and, considering the clearly important 'holistic' properties of foods, it has been suggested that a food should be considered as the fundamental unit of nutrition (Kongerslev et al. 2017). A better scientific understanding is required of the nutritional and health effects of the interactions of structures within complex food matrices and among foods when mixtures of different foods are eaten together. With such knowledge, there is an opportunity to manufacture healthier foods. During traditional manufacturing, natural food structures are often degraded and new structures, potentially with less desirable properties, are formed. New approaches to food manufacturing are needed to ensure the provision of food matrices, food nutrient contents and food bioactives that are consistent with health. The food industry is clearly a powerful medium for the manufacture and distribution of healthy foods, and the way forward will be cooperative research programmes among agricultural sectors, food companies, universities and government-funded research organisations to explore new processing technologies with the aim of shifting the food supply towards nutritious healthy foods and diets.

Having accurate information on the amounts of dietary nutrients required to support body processes and long-term health (dietary requirements) is insufficient. Foods also contain many compounds that are not classically viewed as nutrients (e.g., phytochemicals, bioactive proteins and peptides, and fibre), but may have important effects upon human health. Examples, among many, are immunoglobulins in milk, probiotics in yoghurt and other fermented foods, catechins in tea, bioactive peptides released from many proteins, flavonoids in cocoa, and tannins and anthocyanins in fruits and berries. These properties of food need to be much better understood, and should be the focus of STI. Moreover, the role of diets in influencing gene expression in humans (nutrigenomics) and how genetic makeup influences dietary effects on physiology, metabolism and health (nutrigenetics) offer great potential for a better understanding of nutrition and its influence on health and pave the way for personalised nutrition (Fenech 2008). It is important to recognise that it is not only the human genome that is influencing and influenced by nutrient uptake and metabolism; the numerous genes of the prolific gut microbiome also
undoubtedly have a major influence on nutrient utilisation, metabolic outcomes and health. This is a fertile area for further research and highlights again the complexity of the influence of diet on human health.

There is much evidence that poor nutritional choices are often made at the point at which foods are selected for consumption, and better education at all levels on the impact of food and nutrition on health is critical. Sociological and behavioural research is required to better understand the purchasing motivation of people of different ages and socio-cultural backgrounds. Foods must be desirable, and STI is equally needed to ensure the wide availability of foods that are not only nutritious and healthy, but also safe and convenient, and that have great taste, texture and other properties. Food science and technology, including sensory science, have a major role to play.

In the IAP study, particular attention was given to the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region, a vast area of land extending 3500 km across the high mountain regions of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, Myanmar and Pakistan. Malnutrition and hunger are widespread in the region and a complex interaction of socio-economic, environmental (including food production systems), and cultural factors is considered to be the cause of the widespread malnutrition.

The mountain areas have a low 'carrying-capacity' for agricultural production, and cropping systems have been reliant on diverse traditional crop varieties. However, rapid socio-economic change has led to changed land use, changed crop varieties and new food consumption patterns. The planting of nutritious traditional crops, such as amaranth, buckwheat, minor millet, finger millet, proso millet, foxtail millet, sorghum, barley and sweet potato, is declining; these crops are being replaced by higher-calorie-yielding crops such as rice and wheat, leading to a decline in agrobiodiversity. The production of traditional crops is declining because of factors such as a lack of awareness of their nutritional value, a lack of local markets for the produce and an increasing demand for crops such as rice, wheat and maize. There has been a shift in foods from home-grown foods to purchased foods, from coarse-grain foods to fine-grain foods, and from traditional snacks and drinks to potato chips, instant noodles and soft drinks (Rasul et al. 2017). The consumption of the traditional coarse grains is often viewed as backward in the new value system.

The trend by the urban poor away from legumes and coarse grains, and towards the consumption of oils, fats and high-sugar products, is not unique to the HKH region, but is general in both China and India (Du et al. 2002).

Further, there would appear to be much scope for encouraging farming programmes among smallholder farmers that aim to diversify diets and improve nutrition. Such programmes (Girard et al. 2012) aim to increase household production of perishable nutrient-rich foods (e.g., fruits, eggs, meat, fish and milk). The production of such foods on the farm makes them accessible and less vulnerable to storage and transport losses. Such an approach has been shown to diversify the diet of often nutritionally vulnerable smallholders (Iannotti et al. 2009).
## 4 Transformation to Sustainably Produced and Healthy Diets

Not only must the diets of the future be healthy, they must also be sustainably produced. A new approach is needed to design, evaluate and monitor diverse farming systems. The complexities of diverse farming systems need to be recognised and a nuanced approach taken (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020). By means of example, ruminant livestock farming makes a major contribution to GHG emissions, but, at the same time, livestock farming is economically and culturally important to many people. Also, meat and milk are of high nutritional value and an important supply of minerals (such as calcium, zinc and iron) and vitamins, such as vitamin B12. Whereas a case may be made for the inefficiency of feed-lot cattle production (Poore and Nemecek 2018), the same is not necessarily true for large amounts of pastoral cattle production (Adesogan et al. 2019). Moreover, meat and milk are primarily produced to provide amino acids, minerals and vitamins for human nutrition. When GHG emissions from meat and milk production are expressed per unit first-limiting amino acid rather than per unit total protein, such production is seen in a new light (Moughan 2021). Recent modelling using Linear Programming demonstrates that, given current price relativities, animal-based products are needed to provide least-cost diets (diets that meet all nutrient requirements at the lowest cost) (Macdiarmid et al. 2012; Chungchunlam et al. 2020). It would appear that the cost of some animal products would need to increase greatly before they would no longer be found in a least-cost diet. Sustainable diets must be affordable. The issue is nuanced, and entrenched “blanket” positions should be avoided. The development of new farming systems (e.g., insect, algae, single-cell food production, and in vitro meat production and biotech foods) should be encouraged and their integration into the more traditional land-based systems carefully assessed.

The expansion of aquaculture will likely occur in the future, and STI is needed to improve the genetics of farmed fish and crustaceans, as well as to develop systems that mitigate against eutrophication. A key target in developing more sustainable farming systems will be the reduction of food/nutrient wastage, and here, food science STI has a vital role to play. The DELTA Model (https://sustainablenutritioninitiative.com/) has recently been developed, and calculates nutrient availability to consumers from differing global food production scenarios. Early findings from the model indicate that global food production currently supplies sufficient macro- and micronutrients to nourish the global population if equally distributed, with the exception of calcium and Vitamin E. These nutrients appear to be undersupplied by at least 30%. Total removal of food waste from the model, although helpful, does not solve these insufficiencies. Nutrient loss due to food waste is not constant across all nutrients: relatively little calcium and vitamin E is wasted, whereas waste of carbohydrates and protein is high. Further, while the current food system would provide sufficient energy and protein for the forecast 2030 global population of 8.6 billion, it would fail in supplying several micronutrients (calcium, iron, potassium, zinc, riboflavin and vitamins A, B12 and E).
# 5 Addressing the Food-Energy-Water Nexus and Other Natural Resources

The AASSA Working Group addressed land use for food production in light of competing interests (e.g., urbanisation, textiles, biofuel, ecological restoration, recreational use). An evidence-based and total systems-based (accounting for the principles of recycling and circular agriculture) approach is urged to ensure planning to make optimal use of limited land, water and other resources.

# 6 Supporting and Using Outputs from Fundamental Research

Although the role of applied science, technology and extension is likely to be pivotal in solving key issues, the potential for ‘game-changing’ new discoveries arising from fundamental science should not be overlooked. Recent-past discoveries in molecular biology, IT, and cell biology serve as shining examples of the power of ‘unfettered’ scientific endeavour. Strong programmes in fundamental science are encouraged. At the same time, well-targeted applied research programmes will need to place less emphasis on increasing plant and animal production *per se*, and will need to seek to optimise agricultural outputs in the face of multiple externalities. Cross-disciplinary systems research, bioecological farming, and farm management science will all be important.

# 7 Consequences of Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of global food systems (e.g., rising unemployment and loss of purchasing power, loss of seasonal labour, disruption of food processing and food distribution). Global food systems need to be resilient (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 2020b; Di Marco et al. 2020). The pandemic further highlights the role of good nutrition and healthy diets in supporting the immune system (Calder 2020).

# 8 Strengthening Policy for Research and Its Uptake

Planning for and securing FNS in Asia will require dedicated and bold commitment from politicians and policymakers, while scientists in the region have the responsibility to provide robust peer-reviewed scientific knowledge, to allow for evidence-based decision-making.
The AASSA Working Group urged the establishment of a trans-national funding mechanism in the region (similar to that in the European Union), focussing on interdisciplinary FNS STI. Considering the often considerable lag time in research between investment and adoption, it is imperative that governments in the region not only maintain support for R&D, education and extension related to FNS, but also greatly increase, as a matter of urgency, the overall level of funding. Funding in agriculture and related disciplines has declined over recent decades (AASSA 2018). There needs to be a considerable resurgence in agri-food R&D, extension and education, and such an emphasis needs to be more cross-disciplinary and systems-oriented than in the past. Several areas of STI are seen as universally important for the region (see earlier section), and it is strongly recommended that a cooperative regional approach be taken, to form well-resourced regional centres of excellence that focus on key areas of opportunity.

The importance of formulating an evidence-based ‘blueprint’ for FNS R&D in the region is stressed. If progress is to be maximised, funding needs to be carefully targeted. Systems research needs to be applied, early on, to identify critical impediments that currently affect the region’s ability to increase food production sustainably and to ensure a diversity of high-quality foods reaching the consumer. The knowledge generated must be communicated expeditiously, and shared freely and extensively. In addition to a ramping up of R&D efforts, funding should also be allocated to education at all levels and to “on-farm” and “in-factory” extension. Over and above regional cooperative STI initiatives, there is much opportunity for accelerated collaboration through targeted global alliances, and national/regional policies should incentivise this. A lesson from Covid-19 is that, with restricted travel, the necessary IT infrastructure needs to be in place and available to all to allow for unimpeded collaboration across boundaries and borders. Networking will be paramount.

Ongoing support for international STI programmes such as CGIAR, IFPRI and ICARDA is urged, as is the incentivisation of public-private partnerships (Fanzo et al. 2020b).

In formulating an STI strategy for the region, the potential power of fundamental science should not be ignored. Discoveries, often arising from fundamental science, have the capacity to lead to step-changes in agricultural productivity. Examples of emerging disruptive technologies are found in bio-based manufacturing to produce fuels, chemicals and materials through advanced, efficient and environmentally friendly approaches. Synthetic approaches to producing animal-free meat and milk have attracted much attention. Such products may have advantages in cost of production, ethical acceptance and sustainability, but consumer acceptance is yet to be tested.

Agricultural and rural development were priorities for foreign aid and international development banks before the mid-1980s, but investment in this area has declined in subsequent years. Agriculture and food have been off the global development agenda, and this must be reversed.
References

AASSA (2018) IAP report: opportunities and challenges for research on food and nutrition security and agriculture in Asia. Angkor Publishers (P) Ltd, Noida, India. ISBN: 979-11-86795-26-2

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 Sec. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325

Alexander DD, Cushing CA (2011) Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary of prospective epidemiologic studies. *Obes Rev* 12:e472–e493

Bier DM (2016) Saturated fats and cardiovascular disease: interpretations not as simple as they once were. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 56:1943–1946

Calder PC (2020, May) Nutrition, immunity and COVID-19. BMJ Nutr Prev Health 3(1):74–92. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000085. PMID: 33230497; PMCID: PMC7295866

Chungchunlam SMS, Moughan PJ, Garrick DP, Drewnowski A (2020) Animal-sourced foods are required for minimum-cost nutritionally adequate food patterns for the United States. *Nat Food* 1:376–381

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) (2019) HLPE Report 14: Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. The High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2021

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

Di Marco M, Baker ML, Daszak P et al (2020) Opinion: sustainable development must account for pandemic risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:3888–3892

Du S, Lu B, Zhai F, Popkin BM (2002) A new stage of the nutrition transition in China. *Public Health Nutr* 5(1a):169–174

Fanzo J, Covic N, Dobermann A, Henson S, Herrero M, Pingali P, Staal S (2020a) A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. *Glob Food Sec* 26:100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100397

Fanzo J, Shawar YR, Shyam T, Das S, Shiffman J (2020b) Food system PPPs: can they advance public health and business Golas at the same time? *GAIN, Geneva*

FAO and WHO (2019) Sustainable healthy diets – guiding principles. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf

Fenech M (2008) The human genome, nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics. *Innov Manage Pol Pract* 10:43–52

German RN, Thompson CE, Benton TG (2017) Relationships among multiple aspects of agriculture's environmental impact and productivity: a meta-analysis to guide sustainable agriculture. *Biol Rev* 92:716–738

Girard AW, Self JL, McAuliffe C, Olude O (2012) The effects of household food production strategies on the health and nutrition outcomes of women and young children: a systematic review. *Pediatric Perinatal Epidemiol* 26(Suppl. 1):205–222

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

GNR (2020) Global nutrition report: action on equity to end malnutrition. *Development Initiatives*, Bristol

Iannotti L, Cunningham K, Ruel M (2009) Improving diet quality and micronutrient nutrition: homestead food production in Bangladesh. IFPRI discussion paper 00928. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, p 44. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00928.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2021

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2020a) 2020 Global Food Policy Report: Building Inclusive Food Systems. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293670. Accessed 4 Feb 2021
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (2020b) COVID-19 & Global Food Security (Swinnen J, McDermott J, eds). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133762

Kongerslev Thorning T, Bertram HC, Bonjour J-P et al (2017) Whole dairy matrix or single
nutrients in assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gaps. Am J Clin
Nutr 105(5):1033-1045

Macdiarmid JI, Kyle J, Horgan GW, Loe J, Fyfe C, Johnstone A, McNeill G (2012) Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am J Clin Nutr 96:632-639. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.038729

Moughan PJ (2021) Population protein intakes and food sustainability indices: the metrics matter. Global Food Security (Invited contribution)

Parker M, Acland A, Armstrong HJ et al (2014) Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning. PLoS One 9:e96480

Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science:987-992

Pretty J (2008) Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 363:447-465

Rasul G, Hussain A, Mahapatra B, Dangol N (2017) Food and nutrition security in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. J Sci Food Agric. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8530

Ricciadi V, Wane A, Sidhu BS, Godde C, Solomon D, McCullough E, Diekmann F, Porciello J, Jain M, Randall N, Mehrabi Z (2020) A scoping review of research funding for small-scale farmers in water scarce regions. Nat Sustain 3:836–844

Stathers T, Holcroft D, Kitinoja L, Mvumi BM, English A, Omotilewa O, Kocher M, Ault J, Torero M (2020) A scoping review of interventions for crop postharvest loss reduction in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Nat Sustain 3:821–835

**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_150.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

Claudia Canales and Robin Fears

# 1 Introduction: The Transformation of European Food Systems

Combating malnutrition in all its forms – undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight and obesity – is a problem faced by all countries. Recent data confirm that undernutrition and food insecurity are present in vulnerable groups in Europe (Loopstra 2018; Pollard and Booth 2019; Leij-Halfwerk et al. 2019) simultaneous with an increasing public health burden related to obesity (Pineda et al. 2018; Krzysztoszek et al. 2018). There is still much to be done to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all (UN FSS Action Track 1'). Europe has a rich diversity of food cultures in close proximity to each other, and this diversity is mirrored in the structure of the EU farming sector: very small farms (<2 hectares) make up nearly half of the agricultural holdings, while very large farms (>100 hectares) make up just 3% of the total, but cultivate half the farmland (Kania et al. 2014). Small farms themselves differ widely, and include high-value and specialised production systems (Guiomar et al. 2018). Food has also traditionally played a central role in the EU in the shaping of individual and collective identities (Anderson et al. 2017), and it is also central in current discourses on economic, social and environmental justice and cultural recognition (e.g., Coolsaet 2016; Šūmane et al. 2018). There is large variation in food and nutrient intakes across Europe, between and within countries (Martens et al. 2019).

C. Canales (✉) · R. Fears

European Academies' Science Advisory Council's (EASAC) Biosciences Programme,
Halle, Germany

e-mail: canales.claudia@gmail.com

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/action-tracks</footnote>
In 2017, EASAC published a report on food and nutrition security and agriculture in Europe as part of the InterAcademies Partnership (IAP) global project. That report followed an integrative food system approach to cover interrelated issues around resource efficiency, environmental sustainability, resilience and the public health agenda, while also addressing opportunities for local-global connectiveness and the bioeconomy. EASAC stressed that an earlier food security emphasis on agricultural production now has to be replaced by the food systems approach to encompass all of the steps in the food value chain in order to deliver accessible and affordable food for all, from growing through to processing, trading, consuming and disposing of, or recycling, waste. Food systems must include both supply-side and demand-side considerations for sustainability. Yearly food losses in the EU have been estimated at about 15% of the emissions of the entire food supply chain (Scherhauef et al. 2018). An increase in agricultural productivity would likely increase the environmental footprint without necessarily delivering healthy and nutritious diets that are accessible to all, unless embedded in a profound transformation of food systems (Benton and Bailey 2019).

One issue increasing in importance is the role of public procurement in the demand for sustainable, healthy food (Sonnichsen et al. 2020; WHO 2021): provision of sustainable, healthy diets in hospitals and other public services can help to change consumer behaviour in the longer term (EASAC and FEAM 2021). European Union interest in the sustainability of the food systems approach is increasing (e.g., SAPEA 2020) and the recent Farm-to-Fork (F2F) policy initiative covers the entire food chain, together with protection of the environment.

Much of the EASAC 2017 report focused on scientific advances in agriculture, but there was also significant attention to food science and technology, e.g., for food safety and food processing, so as to reduce food losses, extend distribution and seasonal availability, and for food fortification. The comprehensive recent work of the International Union of Food Science and Technology,<fnref n="2" /> based partly on evidence presented by IAP and its regional work streams, reviewed scientific opportunities related to diverse and sustainable primary production; sustainable process and system engineering; the elimination of waste in production, distribution and consumption; and traceability and product safety (see also Lillford and Hermansson 2020). An additional issue, brought into prominence by the COVID-19 pandemic, is the potential of the improved food value chain to address poverty by increasing entrepreneurial activity and other employment (an issue that should be highlighted in UN FSS Action Track 4, Advance equitable livelihoods).

Transdisciplinary policymaking and governance are required to make food systems more nutrition-sensitive. Food and nutrition security and food sustainability must now be considered as part of formulating European dietary guidelines. Some of the research priorities are described subsequently, but there is also a need for a better definition of what a sustainable diet is and how it can be measured, so that these

<footnote n="2">²Global challenges for food science and technology, 2019, https://iufost.org/global-challenges-and-critical-needs-2/).</footnote>
metrics form part of national surveys and inform policies and interventions to educate consumers on sustainable behaviours and diets.

Innovation is central to delivering the required transformation of food systems, and must be based on transdisciplinary science, new financing and business models, and policy development. This topic has received renewed attention recently. For example, Herrero et al. (2020) developed an inventory of innovations organised according to their position in the value chain (i.e., production, processing, packag- ing, distribution, consumption and waste) and their ‘readiness score’: from basic research all the way to proven implementation under real-world conditions. The dissemination and uptake of these innovations should be considered a priority, and research is urgently needed on how to make options available in current food systems with minimal disruption.

In this EASAC brief, the following sections update selected priorities from the EASAC 2017 report in order to demonstrate how science, technology and innova- tion can provide major contributions to the UN FSS Action Tracks. There are multiple implications for EU policy, as summarised in Fig. 1.

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Matrix of European policy objectives for food and nutrition security. Links with interna- tional policy development are particularly relevant in 2021 because of the UN FSS, as well as COP26 of the UN FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) and COP15 of the UN CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity)</figcaption></figure>
## 2 Agriculture-Environment Nexus and Agroecology in Europe

Linkage of food systems to sustainable development objectives is a core part of the integrated transformations required to attain the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, see GSDR 2019; Sachs et al. 2019; EASAC 2020a). Concomitantly, there is great potential for new business opportunities and economic value (WEF 2020), but also a need to understand the co-benefits and trade-offs of coupling nutritional and environmental objectives for SDGs (McElwee et al. 2020), factors that have to be taken into account in UN FSS Action tracks 2 (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns) and 3 (Boost nature-positive production) as well.

The concept of regenerative agriculture (Newton et al. 2020; Schreefel et al. 2020) embraces farming principles and practices that enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services and increase carbon capture and storage, helping to tackle climate change and improve agricultural resilience and yield. This can be viewed as a core feature of the EU's F2F strategy, but the scientific basis needs to be clarified in order to improve farming systems (Davies et al. 2020). Agroecology is an important part of regenerative agriculture innovation (HLPE 2019); scientific advances here will also help to clarify links between human and livestock health and their dependencies on the environment.

Assessing the relative contribution of different production models to sustainably delivering healthy and nutritious diets and providing important ecosystem services is an important research priority. For example, using life cycle assessments (LCAs), it was estimated that a complete switch to organic cultivation in England and Wales would lower production emissions, but also decrease yields, and the increased reliance on land use elsewhere to make up for the shortfall would result in higher emissions overall (Smith et al. 2019). However, organic agriculture can decrease the reliance on chemical inputs, improve soil carbon sequestration and soil quality, reduce the contamination of water bodies and increase biodiversity. LCAs do not accurately reflect these benefits because of their focus on the product, whereas ecosystem services from agricultural systems are not duly considered. Deploying an integrated approach requires research to quantify the economic value of ecosystems (Dasgupta 2021), as part of the improvement and standardisation of methodologies for assessing and comparing the sustainability of food systems. In addition, estimates of the levels of food production required to fulfil demand often fail to take into consideration the effects of a switch to more sustainable diets, lowered consumption patterns, and the reduction of food waste.

Research for improving the environmental assessments of production systems should include clarifying additional indicators, such as for land and soil degradation and loss of biodiversity; broadening the scope to include the provision of ecosystem services; and improving the assessment of indirect effects within a comprehensive food systems perspective, as opposed to a narrow focus on yield (van der Werf et al. 2020). Organic agriculture should also embrace innovation to improve its performance (Seufert et al. 2019; Clark 2020), and may require multiple policy