全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for inviting us for this discussion!! 

For food and nutrition security to be ensured, resources need to be at the hands of women. With DT Global we recently completed a Scoping Mission for EU Ethiopia. This study has also benefited much from another earlier comprehensive study (for CRS/USAID Feed the Future) titled  ASSESSMENT OF CHALLENGES, BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN, YOUTH AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN ACCESS TO AND USE OF FINANCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS, 2020.

https://assets.fsnforum.fao.org/public/discussions/contributions/Report…

Indeed, creating the ACCESS TO CREDIT to poor women was considered for long (since Grameen bank’s earlier years three-four decades ago) to be the most effective approach to empower women, ensure food and nutrition security . … HOWEVER in most recent discussions at FinEquity (@UNCDF/CGAP) the importance of ensuring women’s ‘’control’’ of such resources are more emphasized. … There are research outcomes highlighting the fact that women who are not sure of having control on her newly earned income (or even the newly accessed loan) are very RELUCTANT TO APPLY FOR LOAN, even when the service is available nearby, and easily accessible!! See an interesting recent discussion at CGAP/FinDev 

https://www.findevgateway.org/blog/2022/06/how-do-savings-contribute-fi…

On the other hand,, women starting ‘’independent saving’’ can also give rise to mistrust and suspicion, and potential Intimate Partner Violence in many contexts where patriarchy is dominant. Efforts need to be made to promote mutual TRUST and ultimate collaboration. Gender transformative household methodologies such as the IFAD and Oxfam-Novib, Hivos supported GALS (Gender Action Learning System) are increasingly becoming appreciated in development interventions. More at Empower@Scale:

https://empoweratscale.org/

I hope this helps... and look forward to further fruitful discussion

Regards, Getaneh (Mail:- [email protected])

Dear Sameer,

I am pleased to hereby submit the input on behalf of the FAO Bioeconomy Team, Environment Workstream, OCB. Please find our input attached.

Kind regards,

Marilique

I have sent the attached before, but it seems the idea of developing new crops specific to different pats of the tropics and sub-tropics to diversify farming systems in ways that enhance agroecology has not been recognized as wise not only for food production but for climate change, wildlife habitat, livelihoods/social/economic benefits, and to mitigate illegal immigration, social conflict and economic development through new local industries (see attached).

Best wishes

Roger

Prof RRB Leakey, www.rogerleakey.com

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Theory of Change and Draft Results Framework.

Inputs for New Food System Integrated Program to support the transformation of food systems into nature-positive, resilient, and pollution free system

General Comments: 

1. Improve inclusion of women, men, youth, indigenous peoples in TOC and Results framework

The language of the Theory of Change and Results Framework can be more gender-sensitive and inclusive.  I appreciate that the questions asked about women, men, youth, indigenous peoples and the TOC and Results Framework can include more of the key vulnerabilities or differential impacts of each of these groups. 

1. Include right to healthy and nutritious food (food systems transformation for both human and planetary health) and nutrition-sensitive lens for every level

Also I wonder if the right to healthy and nutritious food is a goal of the new food system integrated program as it is not clearly articulated in the outcomes of the TOC and Results Framework.  Some references that may be useful to consider are the EAT Lancet report and this action paper on Nature-positive food systems from the Food Systems Summit to bring in the concept that foods systems transformation is for both human nutrition and planetary health.

It would also help to have a nutrition-sensitive lens for the TOC and results framework at every level.

1. Include Biodiversity in Focus for Food Systems Transformation

I have a question on why there is a limitation of focus on crops and commercial commodities for this framework that don’t seem to align other food systems transformation agendas to increase diversity of crops.  I’m referring to this statement in the website prior to the documents: The Food Systems Integrated Program will focus explicitly on sustainable, regenerative, nature positive production systems and support efficient value/supply chains covering selected food crops (maize, rice, and wheat), commercial commodities (soy, oil palm, coffee and cocoa), livestock, and aquaculture.

The TOC notes as a barrier (“Incentives for unsustainable FS”), which I interpret to mean the agricultural subsidies that reduce the price of staples and key crops for production, whereas more nutritious crops and a wider variety of crops are left without incentives (and thus deincentivised).  For livestock and aquaculture, the dietary shift to reduce global consumption of animal source products in most cases and increased utilization of indigenous or local animal source foods in a sustainable way needs to be more clear in the TOC.

1. Organise TOC and Results Framework to distinguish global and country level outcomes/pathways and barriers

There are two levels that the program aims to address (as mentioned in the website): 1) Global Level; 2) Country Level.  It may help show these levels in the TOC and Results Framework (organize the pathways or indicate what is for global or country level).  Right now, both pieces are not clear in this respect and sounds more high level (global level).

Theory of Change:

1

Do the barriers identified reflect your experience as Community Based Organizations (CBOs) / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private sector and local communities (women, men, youth, indigenous peoples)? Are there key barriers that are missing in TOC?

2

Do the first level Outcomes appropriate and adequate for transformation of food systems’ impacts on the environment?

1. The barriers identified in the TOC Pathway 2 are centred on the current paradigm that profit/money is the key driver for what is invested in (or what is not).  However, for clarity and inclusiveness, it may help to identify who has each barrier or note which groups have particularly high risk of such barriers, like women farmers, indigenous peoples, youth.  Some barriers may be specific to such groups as well, and notably different barriers for urban/peri-urban versus rural women, men, youth and indigenous peoples.  One key barrier is lack of access to and/or control of land ownership and use, which would be derived from policies that relate to land inheritance rights, land use policies and marital/divorce laws.  These would likely highly discriminate against women, youth, indigenous peoples, people who are poor and/or with low literacy, people with disabilities. 

The barriers for TOC Pathway 1 are centred on policies only for food systems, and it may be also relevant to look at supportive policies for those you wish to make food systems transformation happen in the community, e.g. land inheritance rights, land use policies, marital/divorce laws.  The lack of inclusion of wisdom and knowledge of indigenous peoples, perspectives of women, men and youth in policies for food system transformation (e.g. food production and the whole value chain) as a barrier is a gap that I see.

The barriers for TOC Pathway 3 can be expanded to include the lack of post-harvest technologies available to manage post-harvest loss (including preservation and storage technologies, especially for fruits and vegetables), adequate distribution, transport of sustainably produced food (including animal source foods) so that it can be accessed where it is needed (in an affordable and equitable way).

1. The first level outcomes could take more consideration of vulnerable groups into the outcomes and differential pathways for urban and rural settings for food systems transformation.  For the second level outcomes, the aspirational outcomes in this action track paper from the Food Systems Summit may spur some additional ideas or pathways that address both human and planetary needs for sustainable, nature-positive food systems.

Draft Results Framework:

Looking at the existing framework, we can understand the hierarchy as follows:

• Policies and governance, globally and locally (enabling environment)
• Financing (enabling environment)
• Macro planning (assessing the overall geography and making landscape decisions; i.e. what should be conserved, what restored, what improved agricultural practices etc)
• Implementation (sustained approaches applied on the ground)
• Knowledge management/dissemination and M&E

Some feedback on the results framework:

• Again, this results framework shows the "how", but it is not specific in terms of what foods are promoted in this food systems transformation.
• In the policy section, to ensure that the policies promote indigenous crops (i.e. doesn't always have to be maize, rice and cassava, should be including millet, other traditional indigenous crops), and nutritious crops. So, the "what" should include crop diversity: indigenous, and nutritious, and that should be embedded in policy
• In the Implementation section, the approaches should include indigenous knowledge/practices and input; i.e. it's not all new innovations, some of the solution rests with building in traditional, indigenous practice and so the approaches need to be bi-directional; i.e. not only providing scientific solutions, but including those indigenous practices that are sustainable
• In that section, the indicator about landscapes under improved practices; not only the practices, but the what of it; what is being grown should include crop diversity and nutrition considerations
• Likewise, the indicator about livelihoods should be expanded - not only improved livelihoods, but improved health and nutrition (and food security)
• In the value chain section, inputs should include for traditional/indigenous crops
• In the knowledge section, it's not only increased capacity of local actors, but the mainstreaming of knowledge of indigenous practices. 

3

Are the Outcomes planned appropriate and adequate for food systems transformation?

4

What could be examples of types of intervention and outputs that could ensure stronger engagement and ensure capacities of CBOs/ NGOs, the private sector, and communities (including women, men, and youth, indigenous peoples) to continue food systems transformation?

5

What might be specific contributions of each stakeholder group to the achievement of the components?

1. Similar to above comments, if there can be more inclusive outcomes that represent different groups and rural/urban contexts, that would improve the framework.  Also the lack of mention of nutrition in the food systems framework is a gap.

1. Citizen assemblies to engage men and women farmers, youth, indigenous peoples

Examples:

Mali – GMO Cotton Citizen Assembly; Method for discussion of Food system transformation – 4th Industrial Revolution versus Food Sovereignty and Acroecology

Capacity Building on Climate-smart interventions in food production of healthy diets

Trainings on Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration, Climate-smart agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, green manure/cover crops, use of indigenous foods (insects, seeds, nuts) and plants promotion in healthy diets

Support for citizens so that they have basic rights, enabling them to participate in food systems transformation pathways for their country

In crisis-setting and transitioning out of crisis areas, food and/or cash assistance for support of most vulnerable families, including farmers, pastoralists, fishers, etc.

1. Right now, the draft results framework is a bit high level (i.e. not clear on how relevant key stakeholders in the communities part of food system transformation work is included), and it’s not clear how the food producers input into all the processes.  I would recommend organizing by global level and country level (as noted in the introduction on the website).

In addition, the Program development team seeks inputs on your experiences and advice on:

• Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices.
• Successful examples of multi-stakeholder processes at national level that brings local communities (including indigenous peoples, youth, women and men), the private sector, the civil society and academia and the government to develop policies related to food systems.
• Successful examples of public-private partnerships for food systems transformation.
• Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.

Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices.

In terms of practices, World Vision champions Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration.  We also have experience in working in communities with most vulnerable children and their families to support their livelihoods and reducing food insecurity through climate-smart agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture and a range of livelihood, savings and social protection interventions.

Successful examples of multi-stakeholder processes at national level that brings local communities (including indigenous peoples, youth, women and men), the private sector, the civil society and academia and the government to develop policies related to food systems.

The citizen assemblies are relevant for engagement of local communities and multi-stakeholder processes (examples: Mali GMO decision process, Citizens forums for Food Systems Transformation).

Citizen Voice Action is also promoted within World Vision to support community members to advocate for local issues with their duty bearers, including government.  This could be supporting local advocacy from community members on issues of food systems that affect them.  This is a recent publication for how it was used in MEER (for other issues).

Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.

This is not on research gaps or innovations itself, but a way to democratize the knowledge for all:

Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity: Constructing and Contesting Knowledge Edited by Michel Pimbert.

Carmen Tse, World Vision International, Senior Nutrition Advisor, and Michele Gaudrault, World Vision International, Technical Director, Health and Nutrition

Theory of change:

In general, the barriers identified reflect well the current situation and challenges. According to our experience, one additional barrier is the lack of awareness of consumers in developed countries and emerging markets. Even if the purchasing power is middle or high, low prices are the most important driver for decision making. This is enhanced by marketing /promotion of the food companies: images of products from a intact world and happy animals - for the lowest price. Only about 10 % of consumers are not only confirming to be willing to pay more - but also paying a fair price. This is not enough. Legislation on verification of "green claims" and legislation against price dumping below production costs is needed to change the perception and the real behaviour of consumers.

Role of stakeholders:

Governments need to implement and monitor legislation leading to increase the price of unsustainable produced products and to an equal playing field to make sustainable produced products competitive and unsustainable products unprofitable, e.g. via taxes.

Governments in cooperation with food business associations should develop credible information sources, e.g. databases with primary data on sustainability aspects in the most important sourcing regions, e.g. risks of de-forestation, degradation of other ecosystems, situation of water sources etc. These information sources should be available for all companies of the food sector.

Governments should include sound sustainability criteria in their agreements on biotic raw material with other states. Governments at all levels should consequently implement Sustainable Public Produrement Rules.

Companies of the food sector need to consider biodiversity and climate protection as quality elements of agricultural production /products and request both in their supply rules. Food standards should have sound criteria on biodiversity and climate mitigation. Companies should have attractive incentives for farmers which go beyong legislation in sustainability aspects - especially for smallholder farmers: incentives covering additional costs for sound ecological and social standards and recognizing the added value of products.

Food companies need also to support awareness raising and education of consumers. Currently they are suggesting to consumers that products come from an intact world with happy farmers and for a low price. And consumers are egoistic and happy to believe these messages.

Standards and food companies should be obliged to realize monitoring of sustainability aspects of certified farms /producers in the supply chains using harmonized monitorig approaches. Results should be published and companies failing to proof continuous improvements should have disadvantages.

Governments, standards and companies should agree on an international agreed definition and framework for regenerative agriculture to make sure that regenerative agriculture will not be used as un unfair competition against sustainable forms of agriculture (e.g. agroecology, organic agriculture).

Draft Results Framework

Examples of types of intervention and outputs:

Project "Del Campo al Plato" to improve biodiversity protection in the production of banana and of pineapple. The Biodiversity Check Agrícola was elaborated and implemented (currently arround 150 plantations) in order to determine the current situation on the plantation, identify need and potential for improvement and recommend measures for continuos improvements. These components are an important input for sound biodiversity action plans for the plantations. Biodiversity Check Agrícola Convoy is adapted to small holder cooperatives to elaborate a Biodiversity Action Plan on landscape level.The tool proofed to improve considerably biodiversity protection on banana and on pineapple plantations and can be adapted to other products and other tropical regions. The BCA was developed by GNF and GIZ Germany. https://www.delcampoalplato.com/en/home-engl/

A similar tool based on the Biodiversity Performance Tool was developed for coffee production in South America = Biodiversity Performance Tool Café. The content and process is the same: Baseline description and evaluation, proposals for measures, Biodiversity Action Plan and monitoring of implementation of the BAP. The BPT Convoy is applied to cooperatives of smallholder coffee producers. The BPT Café was developed by GNF, Fundación Humedales, Rainforest Alliance and 4C Coffee Standard. Currently it is also applied by smallholder cooperatives in Vietnam.

GNF supported the development of the Global G.A.P. Biodiversity Add-on Standard which is currently to most advanced standard regarding biodiversity protection. Currently the standard is only applicable for vegetable and fruit producers in Europe, but Global G.A.P. plans to extend the standard to all commodities and all regions.

Successful examples of public-private partnerships for food systems transformation

The project Del Campo al Plato includes various successful examples of public private partnerships between German Development Agency GIZ and pineapple producers (e.g. Nicofruta) and banana producers (Banelino, Dole). Main objective of the partnerships is the improvement of biodiversity management and protection and full integration into the management practises of the producers.   

Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits

Information sources /primary data on environmental aspects - specially biodiversity - in the sourcing regions is missing and needed for food companies to take appropriate decisions regarding their supply chains. This information sources are of special importance for SMEs in the food sector which do not have the resources for own studies etc. The database on sourcing regions should also include more sustainable alternatives to source agricultural goods.

Furthermore, a harmonized biodiversity monitoring framework for the food sector would be needed - as credible basis for reporting duties and to allow comparision of supply chains and companies.  

Dear FSN Forum Team

A very important point that has been neglected in sustainable agriculture, especially in countries with low and medium rainfall, is that the production of their agricultural products should not exceed the capacity of their rainfall and water resources.

For example, If a country has an average rainfall and water resources of 800 mm per year and in the same year, agricultural products are produced with a capacity of 1000 mm in that country. In this condition with about 200 mm of excess consumption from the underground water levels, damage is done to the environment nationally and internationally.

Therefore, the United Nations and FAO can manage this type of inconsistency in the agricultural productions and  excessive consumption of environmental water.

Yours ever

Gholamhossein Hosseini

Ph.D.: Biology - Biometricsl Genetics, Scientist, Cotton Research Institute of Iran

Thank you for this consultation.

I would just comment that, in front of the diversity and complexity of the food systems, there is a need to regulate markets and trade with the objective of agroecological perspectives.

I join a paper on market regulation, a contribution for the next EAAE congress.

Best

Our current food system is in desperate need of a transformation, one that requires a multi-sector and multi-stakeholder approach and in which partnership is crucial. It faces many problems, including environmental (soil damaging), social (exclusion, poverty), health (labor) and economical (injustice, fair prices). In many countries, people still work far below average payment in harsh environments.

In addition, the world food system is faced with increasing demand and many disruptive forces, such as environmental constraints and deteriorating soil conditions.

Technology could serve a role in supporting this transformation towards more resilient food systems and enough food for all. Using technological innovation in support of food system transition could reduce producers work load and labour intensiveness, and improve their resilience to stressors. It could also bring local food systems closer to people, help close the gap between farm and fork, and bring the market to distant producers.

However, how to prevent exploitation from small-holder farmers with expensive technology, to make technology accessible for all, and to lower user-reluctance? What role could community supported technology hubs or community supported agriculture play in this and how to prevent technology becoming the goal instead of the means?

Strengthening national capacities towards enhancing the NDC ambitions would mean much to the development of these framework. For instance, supporting a well coordinated mechanism that is technology backed would mean elaborating a data driven system and inventory of farmer monitoring, reporting and verification (MVR) which in turn enhances efficiencies of countries' monitoring their NDCs progress.

The Development of emission inventories in the food value chain is considered a rock-bed for many countries to slow down their agriculture-based emissions through the reduction of GHG intensive agricultural practices.

Other technology adoptions and improvements may mean the introduction of creative financing instruments to deliver on programs and competitive projects.

Thank you for the invitation.

Input on New Food System Integrated Program to support the transformation of food systems into nature-positive, resilient, and pollution free system.

There should be a shift of focused towards advancing indigenous and local climate activism, and strengthening climate movements locally so that these outcomes will build a concrete block to further give essential support to governments, private sector, humanitarian agencies, value chain actors and policymakers to increase global food security and climate ambition. With this, there should be focal points across offering resources to enhance the work of young humanitarians and activists in local communities who will engage the governments and policy makers to advance indigenous perspectives in global food security and climate policy as a long-term drive for sustain results and impact.

These outcomes planned should aim directly at helping improve livelihoods of vulnerable communities, protecting the dignity of displaced persons especially women through economic empowerment, and encouraging healthier diets, reducing food waste, and changing farming and land management practices to reduce emissions from food production. There should be clear deliverables key to helping rural agriculture to be more resilient to climate change impacts through nature-based solutions by diversifying crops on farms, restoring depleted agricultural lands and forests to boost ecosystem services: helping farmers  reduce using conventional farming techniques to organic farming practices to ensure more healthy and chemical free foods, and helping rural women and smallholder farmers change from ploughing lands and harrowing it to adopting no till farming techniques to expand their farms which will further generate more income to improve their livelihoods and also maximize yields to build food security. These communities have been using their traditional practices and knowledge to adapt to environmental changes for a long time, while also helping to mitigate climate change by conserving and managing important forest areas around the world, therefore fully integrating local perspectives and solutions into climate action strategies will be essential and help maintain functioning ecosystem services in the face of this changing climate and ensuring benefits are shared equitably, to cause the transformation we seek to achieve in food systems.

Kindly see my article if it will be useful: Research/Articles – CeWaFS-Ghana (cewafsghana.com)

Logical framework for my community development-based organization.

Program Goal: To help rural, migrant, and deprived communities build resilient food system for food security

INTERVENTION LOGIC

INDICATORS

MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS

Objective 1:

To improve food security for rural women

Through our training rural women will learn how manage agricultural resources to enhance crop yields. Rural women will have enough to feed and sustain themselves

Observation and administrating questionnaires to beneficiaries after the program

Rural livelihoods become more profitable: (SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 5: Gender Equality)

Food nutrients increase; (SDG 2: Zero Hunger & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities).

Objective 2:

To train rural women in organic vegetables farming so they can gain new streams of income

Rural women produce and sell organic vegetables. Rural women gain financial independence.

Interviewing beneficiaries and conducting survey on the impact of the program

Lives are directly impacted; Number of farmers, youth, & women’s groups earn

more through marketplace

Objective 3:

To help indigenous farmers restore depleted agricultural resources and forests around their farms to boost ecosystem services

Depleted agricultural lands restored and ecosystem services boosted. Increase in crop yields

Comparing statistics of farm yields before and after the program.

Field survey to investigate the rate of resource use.

Resilient Ecosystems are built; (SDG 13: Climate Action)

Rural folks get improved water systems, Ground water become abundant since catchment areas are conserved; (SDG 6: Clean Water & Sanitation & SDG 14: Life Below Water)

Soil fertility gets restored; (SDG 15: Life on Land).

Kamasa Dorothy, Ghana

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the project documents as guided by you.

Theory of Change:

1.

Do the barriers identified reflect your experience as Community Based Organizations (CBOs) / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private sector and local communities (women, men, youth, indigenous peoples)? Are there key barriers that are missing in TOC?

The barriers identified reflect my experience as NGO/ private sector practitioner; however some key barriers could also be considered for example;

Pathway 1 –

• Most FS Initiatives are not compatible with local abilities, resources and cultural practices- while the initiatives could have a noble goal but may not be sustainable
• Lack of support to build strong coalition and self sustaining collaborative actions in FS- you require initial support to build coalitions among the stakeholders so that they develop a common interest in coming up with sustainable solutions to address FS challenges which in most cases is lacking
• Weak enforcement on existing policies and regulations supporting FS initiatives

Pathway 2 barriers on financial services-  my experience is that many financial institutions shy away to extend credit to farmers (primary producers) who are the base of the FS which is a key barrier

Secondly if the market is not properly organized most financial institutions will not extend credit especially to farmers.

There is also absence of insurance policies in FS which is also a barrier.

Pathway 3 – For stakeholders to engage meaningfully and sustainably there must be a clear benefits derived from the process which may not be clear in most FS initiatives this is a key barrier

Pathway 4- Most of the innovations on FS remain in research and not with the end user- weak dissemination of innovations on sustainable approaches to FS is a barrier.

2.

Do the first level Outcomes appropriate and adequate for transformation of food systems’ impacts on the environment? Yes they are appropriate and adequate

Draft Results Framework:

3.

Are the Outcomes planned appropriate and adequate for food systems transformation?

Yes the outcomes are adequate and appropriate

4.

What could be examples of types of intervention and outputs that could ensure stronger engagement and ensure capacities of CBOs/ NGOs, the private sector, and communities (including women, men, and youth, indigenous peoples) to continue food systems transformation?

• During the planning stage it would be important for all the stakeholders to clearly  identify a common interest and what benefits they are going to accrue from FS transformation- this would give them incentives for stronger engagement
• Also there is need to empower local capacities to design, implement, monitor FS enterprises arising from the transformation process.
• The stakeholders need to develop both short and long term action plans to ensure focus on FS transformation and ensure stronger engagement
• Engaging the media for awareness creation, lobbying, messaging and knowledge sharing- The role of the media is normally forgotten

5.

What might be specific contributions of each stakeholder group to the achievement of the components?

a)

Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices.

b)

Successful examples of multi-stakeholder processes at national level that brings  local communities (including indigenous peoples, youth, women and men), the private sector, the civil society and academia and the government to develop policies related to food systems.

An Example of a multi-stakeholder process is SCALE approach (System wide Collaborative Action on Livelihoods and Environment) where I participated as a stakeholder among many others to address the issue of enriched feeds for the dairy sector in Kenya to enhance dairy productivity. We initially held a whole System in a room (WSR) planning workshops where we engaged with stakeholders like Government, Self help groups, CBOs, Farmer Cooperatives, NGOs, Universities, USAID, AED, Media etc to map the context of the issue to addressed, formed partnerships and coalitions to address the issues and developed personal action plans that we used to implement the changes.

c)

Successful examples of public-private partnerships for food systems transformation.

Government of Kenya/ East Africa Grain Council/ Farmers/Financial Institutions PPP- The government leases public warehouses for grain handling to private members of EAGC who work with farmers and Financial institutions to operate warehouse receipt system (WRS).

d)

Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.