Профиль участника
Г-н Marco Brini
Организация:
ETH - World Food System Center
Страна:
Швейцария
Область (области) знаний:
Этот участник внес свой вклад в:
-
-
-
Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems is vital for achieving food security and nutrition amidst increasing urbanization and rural transformation. The following scenario outlines a multi-level approach that integrates various innovative farming methods and technologies to address these challenges.
Level 1: In-store vertical farms
In retail stores, fully automated vertical farms could be established to grow fresh herbs and small fruit plants. These farms would be managed by robotic systems, allowing customers to have their food picked, packaged, and ready for purchase in real-time. This approach would help reduce transportation costs, lower the carbon footprint, and provide the freshest produce to consumers.Level 2: Larger vertical farms and greenhouses
To supplement in-store vertical farms, larger vertical farms and greenhouses utilizing aquaponics systems could be established in urban and peri-urban areas. These facilities would produce larger quantities of less perishable foods, such as leafy greens, tomatoes, and cucumbers. Aquaponics systems integrate fish farming with hydroponics, which would help conserve water and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers, promoting sustainable agricultural practices.Level 3: Highly automated, precision farming in external areas
Farming areas particularly suited for agriculture could be developed with fully automated, high-productivity farms that utilize precision farming and digital agriculture technologies. These technologies would enable better management of resources, reduce waste, and maintain a balance between productivity and environmental sustainability. Drones, sensors, and AI-driven decision-making tools would optimize farming practices, ensuring the best use of land, water, and fertilizers.Bonus Level: Rooftop greenhouses
To further enhance urban food production, buildings could be encouraged to transform their rooftops into productive greenhouses. These spaces could be rented out to individuals for personal food growing, promoting local food production and a sense of community. This approach would also contribute to the greening of urban environments, improve air quality, and increase overall urban resilience.By promoting local food production and minimizing the environmental impact of agriculture, this approach can help ensure food security and nutrition in the face of urbanization and rural transformation.
-
-
-
What are the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems?
There are several barriers that can prevent scientists and other knowledge holders from effectively contributing to informing policy for agrifood systems:-
Limited access to decision-makers and policymakers: Scientists and other experts may not have the connections or resources to engage with decision-makers and policymakers.
- Lack of understanding of the policy-making process: Scientists and experts may not be familiar with the political and bureaucratic processes that govern policy-making, making it difficult for them to navigate and effectively participate.
- Limited resources: Scientists and experts may not have the funding or resources to conduct the research or analysis necessary to inform policy.
- Limited engagement of stakeholders: Scientists and experts may not engage with stakeholders and community members in a meaningful way, which can limit the impact of their research and analysis.
- Limited capacity for multi-disciplinary research and collaboration: Scientists and experts may not have the capacity to conduct multi-disciplinary research or collaborate with other experts, which can limit the breadth and depth of their research and analysis.
Despite these barriers, there are also several opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for agrifood systems:
-
Engaging with decision-makers and policymakers: Scientists and experts can engage with decision-makers and policymakers to share their research and expertise, and to help inform policy.
-
Building partnerships: Scientists and experts can build partnerships with other stakeholders, including community members, industry leaders, and policymakers, to help inform policy.
-
Using data and technology: Scientists and experts can use data and technology to conduct research and analysis that informs policy.
-
Leveraging existing networks: Scientists and experts can leverage existing networks, such as professional associations, to share information and collaborate with other experts.
-
Developing interdisciplinary research: Scientists and experts can develop interdisciplinary research that brings together different perspectives and expertise to inform policy.
Scientists and other knowledge holders can contribute to agrifood systems policy by engaging with decision-makers and policymakers, building partnerships with other stakeholders, using data and technology to conduct research and analysis, and leveraging existing networks to share information and collaborate with other experts.
In general, policy-makers tend to prioritise evidence that is relevant, reliable, and actionable.
Some of the strengths of the process include the ability to bring together a wide range of stakeholders and perspectives, the use of evidence and data to inform decision-making, and the ability to adapt and respond to changing conditions. Some of the weaknesses of the process include the potential for political and economic considerations to take precedence over scientific evidence, the potential for bias and power imbalances among stakeholders, and the potential for the process to be slow and bureaucratic.
Sustainability science, inter-disciplinarity, and trans-disciplinarity can inform agrifood systems policy by providing a holistic perspective that takes into account the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of the issue. However, opportunities and challenges can arise when attempting to apply these approaches to policy-making. These include the need for effective communication and collaboration among experts from different fields, the need to balance competing priorities, and the need to navigate the complexity of the policy-making process.
Power asymmetries among stakeholders can be effectively taken into account in science-policy processes by ensuring that the voices and perspectives of marginalised and underrepresented groups are heard, and by taking steps to address structural and systemic barriers that can limit their participation.This can include efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the policy-making process, to engage with stakeholders and community members in a meaningful way, and to build partnerships and networks that bring together a wide range of perspectives and expertise.
Researchers can take several actions to align their research to problems and challenges faced by agrifood systems, such as:-
Engaging with stakeholders and community members: Researchers can engage with stakeholders and community members to understand the problems and challenges they face, and to identify opportunities for research that can inform policy.
-
Conducting interdisciplinary research: Researchers can conduct interdisciplinary research that brings together different perspectives and expertise to understand the complex issues facing agrifood systems.
-
Building partnerships: Researchers can build partnerships with other experts, including scientists, policymakers, industry leaders, and community members, to help inform policy.
-
Using data and technology: Researchers can use data and technology to conduct research and analysis that informs policy.
-
Leveraging existing networks: Researchers can leverage existing networks, such as professional associations, to share information and collaborate with other experts.
Research questions in the sphere of work are often framed by academic interests, but also by the focus of funders. Researchers need to balance their own interests with the goals and objectives of the funding agencies.
The research and policy-making communities in the sphere of work may not always be united in their understanding of the challenges facing agrifood systems. Scientists may focus on specific research questions, while policymakers may focus on practical solutions.
Researchers can work across disciplines and draw on expertise from academic and non-academic actors, including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers, to provide a holistic perspective on agrifood systems challenges.
Co-producing research with other knowledge holders and non-academic stakeholders is important for informing policy in agrifood systems as it allows for a more inclusive and diverse perspective. It also ensures that research is more relevant to the specific context, and that stakeholders are more likely to use and act upon the research findings.
Universities and research organisations can support researchers to produce and disseminate knowledge products by providing resources such as funding, staff, and equipment. They can also provide training and support for knowledge translation, such as by organising workshops and seminars on effective communication and dissemination strategies.
Universities and research organisations can create and maintain institutional linkages between producers and users of research by building partnerships and networks with other organisations and stakeholders, such as government agencies, industry groups, and community organisations. They can also provide dedicated resources for knowledge translation, such as communication specialists or science policy officers.
Incentives and rewards for effective policy engagement can include funding for research and dissemination activities, recognition through awards and promotions, and opportunities for professional development and training.
Universities and research organisations can engage in activities such as evidence synthesis and guideline development to collate evidence for policy. They can also engage in processes to build evidence into agrifood policy processes, such as through government consultations and knowledge management systems.
Universities and research organisations can also contribute to efforts to ensure that evidence is provided for policy-making that is grounded in an understanding of a national or sub-national contexts, demand-driven, and focused on contextualising the evidence for a given decision in an equitable way by conducting research that is context-specific and relevant to the needs of the community and stakeholders. They can also engage with stakeholders and community members to ensure that their research is accessible, understandable and relevant to the specific context.
Evidence is considered credible, relevant, and legitimate when it is based on sound research methods, has been peer-reviewed, and is consistent with other available evidence. Additionally, evidence is considered relevant when it addresses a specific problem or question of interest to the audience, and legitimate when it is derived from trustworthy and unbiased sources.
To balance the different requirements of different audiences, it is important to communicate the evidence in a clear and accessible manner, and to provide context and explanations that help to make the evidence relevant and understandable. Additionally, it is important to involve stakeholders in the process of evidence generation, assessment and communication, to ensure that their perspectives and needs are taken into account.
Evidence can be assessed in a rigorous, transparent, and neutral manner by using established methods and standards, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and by involving experts from different disciplines and perspectives. Additionally, assessments should be conducted in a transparent manner, with all methods, data, and results fully disclosed, and by being aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest.
Assessments of evidence can best be communicated to all stakeholders by using clear and accessible language, providing context and explanations, and involving stakeholders in the process. This can include organising workshops, seminars, and other events to share the evidence and to discuss its implications with stakeholders, and by using digital and social media to disseminate the evidence to a wide range of audiences.
-
-
PROBLEM: RESEARCH to FARM GAP(s)
There is a significant GAP between what's happening in the universities, research centres, policy makers structures and what's happening in the farms, in the input providers and downstream supply chain.
The GAP is at the level of direct "people's connection", understanding of practical daily priorities, perspective.
Unless these worlds are more connected daily, global policies, innovations, opportunities will be missed and there will be a mismatch among what science focuses on and what the farm (and overall agri sector) needs.
(POSSIBLE) SOLUTION(s)
1. Farmers closer to university-research: identifying key farmer's representatives to be regularly involved in the decision making process of policies and researches, through interviews, easy presentation of the ongoing researches and activities; such representatives should have a power of vote.
The same should happen with the representatives of the upstream (input providers) and downstream (food supply chain) of the agri value chain. Involving equivalent representatives in the academia and policy institutions as active members.
2 . university-research to farm: leading universities have their internal farm(s) where they actually produce and test all innovations. This approach should be followed (and even expanded) by all agri-universities and research centres, allowing the scientist to put themselves in the shoes of the farmers and translate the research into practice.
3. innovator farmers: farmers with an attitude to innovate should be invited regularly to the above described University farms, where they can see and "touch" what's happening on the research side. They will also provide feedbacks and further ideas to these farms. Ideally some of them will also be invited to directly participate in the activities of such farms.
Finally the "innovator farms" should be able to access at low-cost or no-cost the results of the innovations & test the new policies. Being selected by an open attitude towards innovations, they would likely embrace such innovation allowing a second level test for further fine tuning. In exchange for the access to innovations at better conditions they will indeed be demanded to provide clear feedback.
-
POLICY MAKING PROCESS
The policy making process currently stays in between the highly fragmented agriculture diversities and the global digital system convergence.
DIVERSITIES
The food production system is fragmented and highly diversified in crops, farm size, farm budget, climate, local infrastructure available, ...
DIGITAL
At the same time, digital allows convergence of information, easy(er) connection throughout the player of value chain, knowledge sharing (geographically and over time) and much more.
Digital represents a tremendous opportunity to allow local policy makers to better connect locally (aggregating info and accessing them efficiently) and globally (keeping up with the newest opportunities).The digital divide is progressively diminishing with a more global coverage and more affordable smartphones pushing penetration in developing countries.
FARMERS & CONSUMERS INVOLVEMENT
Farmers and consumers are the key entities in the process: the first produce, the latter pay. They should be included in the policy making process and digital platform finally make it easy to connect and share.
Representative of both categories should be constantly present and have a more relevant weight into the decision making process.
(CON)FEDERATIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS
As agri is significantly impacting the environment and most food cross the national (and often continental) borders, a multi-level body system of decision making process is desirable, having the core of the international body focusing on the issues having a global impact on people and planet health while having a focus on the global food system resiliency. Local bodies will have more time and freedom to focus on specificities of the local production.
-
-
-
1. How should real-time monitoring be designed and utilized to strengthen existing early warning systems and support preventative policy responses to food crisis risk.
- Digital solutions will provide valuable globally aggregated and accurate realtime data about food production. Digital solutions are on their way to provide farmers with:
- Agronomic recommendations
- (micro)finance services
- (micro)agri-insurance services
These services can provide tremendous improvement in terms of productivity and resiliency for the food production system. In order to work properly, such solutions require real time data to be shared by farmers about crops, productions… This is key.
These data can feed big data & analytic solutions to aggregate information and having both a near real time feedback of harvests along with expected production (with some more sophisticated analytics).
- Internet of Things and satellite along with Cloud solutions will allow climate prediction to anticipate food shortage. IoT (Internet of Things) + BigData/Analytics can integrate existing satellite data with local AWS (Automatic Weather Stations) to estimate the impact of weather conditions on global & local farming area.
New generation smart sensors for agriculture will be simpler and cheaper enabling IoT at global scale. Farmers will benefit to invest few dollars to have real-time information about the soil & air humidity to fine tune irrigation and/or taking any agronomic choices (from seeding/harvest time to treatments). These additional data can be shared on anonymous base with larger data pools (in exchange of services such as software tool use providing agronomic recommendations, pricing information, etc.) further increasing the quantity and quality of climate data. Predictions about food production will not only be more and more accurate, but also more and more automatic.
Government incentives Local governments should support adoptions of such tools for instance incentivizing (*) innovative startups and large corporations to cooperate to launch innovative solutions. (*) policies, subsidies, credits, VC, tax holidays
Data privacy policies to incentive data exchange Key would be to define national and international simple but fair policies about data privacy to motivate data exchange.
Data to flow from “local data lake to global data ocean” Equivalently important would be having some sort of pragmatical protocol and format for data exchange among technologies and software to enable data to flow from local to global.
___________
2. What are examples of successful policy responses at country level that have been guided by existing monitoring tools?
Some platform to aggregate data at national and global level are already available. They should ideally further develop integrating with other local and global solutions (gov and business oriented). Following some examples:
INDIA: http://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/
CGIAR: https://bigdata.cgiar.org/shared-services/
GODAN: https://www.godan.info/pages/about-open-data
AGRIROUTER: https://my-agrirouter.com/en/
IBM & YARA: (The Open Farm & Field Data Exchange) https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-23-Yara-and-IBM-launch-an-open-collaboration-for-farm-and-field-data-to-advance-sustainable-food-production
api-agro: https://api-agro.eu/en/the-platform/
___________
3. Local food prices are one way to get a temperature check of local market conditions, but high frequency local market price data is not widely available. Where are the gaps such as this one in real-time monitoring and how can these be addressed both in a research and policy context?
Research and policies should support the development of open digital platforms and standard for data exchanges. These frameworks require financial resources and international agreements, while are necessary to boost the development of INTEROPERABLE digital solutions to provide market services to farmers and buyers with an expected relevant increase of efficiency in the supply chain, market pricing and food waste reduction.
Once such solutions will be widely used and based on common framework for data exchange, it would be easy to AGGREGATE LOCAL DATA AT GLOBAL LEVEL. Cloud analytics software could be developed to receive anonymized data flows from local & global digital platforms allowing to have a real time global assessment of prices and food availability.
___________
4. Advances in early warning technologies and data must be matched by developing capacity within institutions at the country and regional level to transform relevant data into preventative actions. What is needed to initiate and scale up the use of real-time monitoring in early warning early action systems by regional organizations, national governments, and other country level institutions? What are the technical and policy-related challenges associated with the use of such tools?
The currently available solutions and technologies have already successfully proven to support agriculture on several levels:
- production (agronomic recommendations, water saving, costs optimizations,…),
- financial (credits, insurances),
- market (global and local trading solutions)
- and logistic (supply chain)
The digital adoption just started and the opportunities ahead are tremendous.
Which policies / actions can help? Local and global ecosystem allowing cooperation among public & private, local & global in a sustainable way would further promote digital solutions adoption. Incentives to farmers that adopt digital technologies can boost adoption as well. In micro-insurances several countries are supporting farmers with subsidies. Ideally similar approaches are taken to support farmers that intend to adopt smart sensors, digital agronomic recommendations, data sharing ...
___________
5. Over the years, a series of different early warming early action systems have been developed by various organizations. How could greater collaboration among the various tools and approaches facilitate their effectiveness in driving policy responses?
Open and free platforms for agriculture data collection, storage and exchange in an anonymized way should be developed and made available to the international community of researchers and developers.
Standardization about data exchange is required as it was during the railway’s standardization at the end of XIX century. Once the above is available, business incentives would do the rest.
- Digital solutions will provide valuable globally aggregated and accurate realtime data about food production. Digital solutions are on their way to provide farmers with:
-
-
-
FOCUS 2) Sustainable transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems How can innovation and digital solutions accelerate such transition of the agi-food systems?
SUMMARY
Digital tools achieved tangible results in large-middle farms increasing profitability and reducing risk through better agronomic recommendations & supply chain efficiency. Small-holder farmers represent the largest world food production segment and aren’t yet fully benefiting from the potential of digital. COVID-19 showed the fragility of the current food production & supply system. It showed also the potential of digital tools to increase resiliency and adaptability. Governments, local cooperatives, large food buyers should support small-holder farmers adoption of digital tools in a structured & ROI focused way, to increase the world food production system resiliency and efficiency. Such adoption should focus on the food system short term sustainability, long term resiliency and farmers sustainability & resiliency.
__________________
BEFORE COVID-19
Setting the tech stage: while since year 2000, the combination of digital tools and internet have significantly changed the processes of several sectors, agriculture was relatively "untouched", lagging behind digital adoption.
Recently several enabling technologies (such as: IoT (Internet of Things), cloud computing, smartphones, mobile networks reaching remote areas, easy APPs, analytics, AI, drones, robots…) have been converging filling the “digital GAP” to make adoption in agriculture profitable.
This process has already started years ago with the large & middle size farms engaging in digital tools. Most recently the sector is getting more mature slowly switching the focus from “Tech-enthusiasm” to “Tech-Return on Investments”. This attitude is essential for small holder farmers that can’t afford investment in assets with undefined return on investments.
DURING COVID-19
Negative impact: I found extremely interesting reading the several online consultations on the FSN Forum reporting consequences of COVID-19 lockdown in different countries. The ones I’m more interested are:
Past harvest losses (due to):
- Manpower unavailability to harvest/store (mainly because of workers going back to their villages)
- “last mile” supply chain malfunctioning (either because of the farmer unavailability or the missing pick-up of harvest to the fields)
Future harvest losses (due to):
- Manpower unavailability to seed fields (workers going back to their villages)
- (Unavailability of agri-inputs & tools (mainly seeds): this has been scarcely reported yet, but its impact shouldn’t be underestimated in the future)
Positive impact: on the other hands some reported success stories of local farmers being able to cope with the above difficulties, in certain cases even taking profit from it. Most of them reported digital tools as key enabling factors.
LESSON LEARNED & WAY TO GO
- The recent months showed the fragility of the current “food chain processes” from remote fields to local & international supply chain. Some process reengineering is required.
- Digital tools aren’t magic sticks but can make the difference (and did make it according to several reports). That’s the way they should be considered: enabling tools to create new more resilient processes
SOME IDEAS of DIGITAL TOOLS ADOPTION (based on personal experiences)
Enabling technologies:
IoT: weather stations & in situ sensors to provide real-time/near-real-time micro-environmental conditions;
Satellites: near-real time climate data along with historical localized climate data;
Cloud Analytics & Big Data: leveraging existing Agronomic algorithms with real-time local data, assessing risk for farmers and insurances, supporting supply chain & logistic, increasing prices efficiencies, and much more
Smartphones (APPs) or traditional GSM phones (USSD): last mile of bidirectional communication to reach farmers with recommendations/information and enabling farmers to share offers & recommendations.
APPLICATIONS
Agronomic recommendations “top-down”: better agronomic actions matching climate data (local & global) with agronomic algorithms to support farmers: crop variety choice, seeding time, harvest time, treatments against pest & diseases, irrigation patterns when water is available. Real cases (personal experiences) showed increases up to 300-400% of production with 50% water consumption reduction. Others adoption resulted in 30% treatments reduction while equally reducing the agronomic risk of pest & diseases. Coordinated actions of local governments, farmers cooperatives and large buyers can support the adoption to remote areas of such tools replicating such results.
Harvest profitability “two-ways”: crop selection & seeding/harvest-time according to analytics based on local & global market demand along with the supply chain capacity. AI and Big Data can support real time adjustments and mitigating impact of exceptional events (such as floods, droughts, pandemic, …); if the system accommodates all food-provisioning players (including small-holder farmers granting them the same level of information and benefits), it would be definitely more resilient.
Digital micro-insurance: leveraging the combination of enabling tools to create efficient, low cost, highly adaptable insurance product to protect small-holder farmers from exceptional events (including pandemic). The current “old school” approach isn’t sustainable, but the convergence of the mentioned digital tools are proving that (weather index) micro-insurance is indeed sustainable also for small holder farmers and the entire ecosystem requiring in future less public subsidies.
(FUTURISTIC) resilience systems adopting “cooperative human artificial intelligence”: several groups of farmers communicate daily through WhatsApp and similar social network to exchange information and recommendations. AI along with Big Data can potentially be trained to interpret local communications matching them with the farmers economic results, their harvests (shared in an anonymized way respecting farmer privacy), supply chain efficiency, impact of remote producing area on global commodities. Continuous learning AI model can be in future adopted to identify patterns in the combination of Big Data & the local communities farmers chats creating a sort of “cooperative human artificial intelligence” increasing resiliency and self-adapting to global and local events.
-
Г-н Marco Brini
FOOD PRICE VOLATILITY
The fluctuation of food prices over time can have significant impacts on both consumers and smallholder farmers as producers.
CAUSES
Causes of food price volatility:
CONSEQUENCES
Consequences for developing countries:
Food price volatility can have significant impacts on both consumers and smallholder farmers as producers in developing countries. Addressing the causes of price volatility and implementing measures to mitigate its consequences is crucial to ensure food security and promote sustainable development in these countries.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES
BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY
Blockchain technology has the potential to revolutionise the way that smallholder farmers in developing countries engage with the food system. By using blockchain, farmers can create a tamper-proof record of their crop production, which can be used to verify the quality and authenticity of their products. This can help to reduce the risk of fraud and ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their crops. Additionally, blockchain can facilitate direct trade between farmers and consumers, eliminating intermediaries and reducing transaction costs. This can help to increase the incomes of smallholder farmers and improve food security for consumers.
SOME BLOCKCHAIN SOLUTIONS
AgriDigital: AgriDigital is an Australian blockchain-based platform that enables farmers to manage their grain deliveries, contracts, and payments. By using blockchain, AgriDigital provides farmers with greater transparency and traceability in the grain supply chain, helping to reduce price volatility and improve the efficiency of the market.
Provenance: Provenance is a UK-based blockchain platform that enables food producers to track the provenance of their products from farm to fork. By using blockchain, Provenance provides consumers with greater transparency and traceability in the food supply chain, helping to reduce the risk of fraud and ensure that farmers receive a fair price for their products.
IBM Food Trust: IBM Food Trust is a blockchain-based platform that enables food producers, retailers, and consumers to track the provenance of their products. By using blockchain, IBM Food Trust provides greater transparency and traceability in the food supply chain, helping to reduce price volatility and improve the efficiency of the market.