The Work We Do Ep.8 - A Systems Approach for Agrifood Transformation | Corinna Hawkes

Agri-food systems are full of people. That means that agri-food systems are full of power dynamics. So, it means that when we take any action to change food and agriculture, we will face power dynamics. That will not change. >> [music] [music] >> Hi, I'm Katherine Park. Our guest today is Corinna Hawkes, Director of Food Systems and Food Safety Division. Corinna talks to us about adopting systems approach to bring change in food and agriculture. Welcome to the work we do. Corinna, thank you for coming. >> It's great to be here. Thank you. >> Um so, we've been talking about transforming our agri-food systems for years now. Could you tell us about what that actually means? >> It means transforming our current agri-food system from a system that delivers quite a lot of harms to a system that delivers a lot of benefits. And at the moment, and in the history, um we as humans have been treating our agri-food systems pretty badly. And we've been mining um the site the soil. We've been uh producing greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. We've been helping our agri-food systems produce a lot of unhealthy uh diets. Uh we've been exploiting the people who work in agri-food systems. But, the power of agri-food systems is the power of producing converting those harms into benefits. And that involves transforming the way that food is produced, processed, distributed, manufactured, sold, and consumed. But, the uh so we we can work on the different parts of the system. Yeah, there was fantastic work done at FAO to improve soil health, to improve fisheries, to improve nutrition, to improve the the climate effects of of agri-food systems. But the the trouble is is that when you try and work on one of those goals or in just one part of the agri-food system, it might be farming, it might be retailing, it might be processing, you have an effect on another part of the system. And what we've created is agri-food systems that aren't able to deliver all of these different benefits. So if they are perfectly perfectly designed to deliver more food, produce more food, that probably means that they're going to have negative impacts on the environment, they're going to exploit the people who work in them, and they might not be producing the healthiest food. So we can't be producing one goal maximally. We have to optimize the goals that we produce across the system. And to do that, you actually have to change the way the system works. We have to redesign the way that agri-food systems work. >> What is a systems-based approach? >> It's an approach that requires us to look at the relationships between the many different elements and components of agri-food systems. It's an approach that when we take an action in the system and in food and agriculture systems, that we recognize that unless we connect with another part of the system, we're not going to solve our problem. It's an approach that recognizes unless we under- understand the connections with other problems, that we might end up undermining somebody else's someone else's concern. And it's approach which is fundamentally about trying to reconfigure or transform food and agriculture. So, a systems approach is fundamentally about focusing on the relationships in food and agriculture. >> How is systems approach different from coordinating and integrating across sectors and ministries? Cuz it seems like that's what it is. >> So, a systems approach is firstly about seeing the problem differently. You can coordinate, but you can still see the problem in a very traditional way. If you think about a a problem that you want to solve, just say part of of that solution is reducing food loss and waste. So, just say that you say, "Okay, in order to reduce food loss and waste or food loss, we're going to put some cold chain activity in there to to build the capacity to reduce the loss of of of fruits and vegetables, for example." So, you you you put in this technological solution, and it seems like um a great idea, and you coordinate. So, there's a lot of coordination involved in that. And then you find that consumers stop consuming what you're producing because it has a different taste and a different quality. And you find that these solutions are actually pretty expensive. And it doesn't actually stop the situation on the farm or on the boat uh that might be leading to excess production. So, it might reduce the environmental problem of food loss uh and waste along the supply chain, but it doesn't actually uh reduce the problem of of perhaps overproduction in the first place. So, you've you've got your coordination, but you didn't solve the problem. So, what that shows is that a systems approach is about putting the problem in the context of the system, uh the agri-food system. Secondly, it's then about designing different solutions because you might not just have Maybe you do need some cold chain, but maybe you also need to bring in some solutions at the citizen side of that, the eater end of the chain. You bring You need to bring in solutions that create innovations in production. So, you have a portfolio of solutions. And then thirdly, it's around understanding that systems are dynamic. And so, you need to monitor all the time what the the changes that are being implemented. It's very difficult to predict that consumers might react in a certain way because you're experimenting all the time. So, you think, "Okay, this didn't work." But we've We've got a learning mechanism in place that we can learn from how the system has responded. Another really important aspect of a systems approach in food and agriculture is having this vision of the multiple outcomes. And looking beyond our own mandates. And again, you can coordinate very well over one particular problem, but you need to be thinking about my problem is nutrition, or my problem is production, but I also need to care about other people's problems. And the kind of coordination that is needed is about caring about those suite of solutions to address those that that broad system-wide vision. >> Could you give us an example of how we should look at the problem differently? Another example, perhaps. >> Okay. So, let me give you the example of an issue that I worked on for many years, which is the issue of unhealthy diets among children. So, one of the dynamics that reinforces is marketing. What are often called ultra-processed foods now to children. This is a negative force. It creates an environment around children which encourages them uh to consume less healthy diets. So, you say, "Okay, the solution to that problem is to cut marketing to children." >> Ban advertising. >> Yeah, to to ban advertising. I still believe uh in fact, we know from the evidence base uh that uh that could really bring some positive benefits. So, you're looking at the system as you're looking at the problem for what it is and your solution is okay, let's ban it. Now, let's zoom out and look at that problem in its broader context. And when you you start to ask a question why is it that perfectly good, nice people who work in our food companies are doing this with the negative outcomes? It's because the incentives are there for them to try and outcompete the competition in the marketplace. Why does that exist? Let's go Let's peel back another layer. Let's go deeper. Uh it's because uh that there are the corporate governance uh of of large food companies uh requires benefits for shareholders. And uh so, the disincentive uh to reduce anything uh that is going to help outcompete other companies is well, there's no incentive. So, it means that what happens is that when governments have put into place uh restrictions on marketing food to children or where when corporations have have made voluntary efforts to do so uh often, it's like squeezing a balloon. You might stop advertising on TV, but then you get more on social media. Uh so, it just goes somewhere else because the incentives haven't been changed. The fundamental incentives. So, what that means is is that you need to say, "What are the deeper solutions?" Um we need to look at corporate governance. However, first of all, you need to try and restrict marketing to children and see what happens. That's why I'm saying is seeing that the the system is that is is being dynamic and understanding we tried that and then we saw the dynamics which was that the dynamics meant that the the advertising continued in different forms and therefore the solutions to that problem are going to be are going to be different. >> And since there are many participants in this solution or solutions sound like making compromises. So, why would anyone why why would they want to do that? >> Agri-food systems are full of people. That means that agri-food systems are full of power dynamics. That's an inherent characteristic of agri-food systems and an inherent characteristic of any system that has people in it. That's not going to change because it's the the nature of of the system. So, it means that when we take any action to change food and agriculture, we will face power dynamics. That will not change. The question is how to to navigate that. In the example that I just gave in the marketing of foods that don't promote health in children, there's been huge huge pushback against those kinds of activities because it goes against the interests which I just described, which is outcompeting your competitors in order to to bring economic to bring economic benefits. Navigating that is very very difficult. I mean, it's one of the reasons that change is so difficult in food and agriculture. That's one very clear example of of large companies who are often trying to do good things, but you know, face their own constraints. But it happens at the micro level, too. Women, for example, are fundamental in our in food and agriculture. You know, we can't produce food without women. We can't do anything without women. Women are fundamentally important and women are often not treated in a way that enables them to really bring their power and agency to to making positive change in food systems. They're having to navigate power dynamics in in whatever they're doing. So, the issue of compromise. How do you actually um navigate all of those different power dynamics and we we balance those power dynamics? That's a really fundamental question. And compromise is always going to have to be part of that process. >> How do governments navigate powerful interests that prefer the status quo? >> Uh one of the aspects that I learned about that was very unexpected to me was about the role of evidence and and knowledge. Uh when I was teaching uh students, you know, we always used to say it's really important to have evidence-based policy. But at the same time, you we know that, you know, making policy is a political process. It's a process that has to consider the different interests, uh the you know, the resource requirements, capacities, all of these different issues in making policy. But there was one particular experience I had when I was working in Brazil uh that I learned a lot from this, which is a a law that was adopted in 2009 uh that was designed to create a link between the school meal program, which is a huge school meal program in the country, a national school meal program, and family farmers, which at that time was a political priority uh for the president of the country. And so, this law was adopted in in 2009. And my role uh was uh I was doing research at that time was to understand the policy process that led to the adoption of that law. And there was a lot of opponents. There was a lot of political opposition. There were powerful interests against the adoption of that law because, you know, certain interests wanted different providers of the food in the institutions. Um and and and there were the people who were always going to be against that law and there were people that were always going to be in favor. But if you play your politics right, it's about getting the people who are wavering. And what I saw was that they used evidence very effectively because they'd already had a food acquisition program. They'd piloted a food acquisition program in the past. And that enabled them to neutralize one of the the pushback that was being used against it which was logistically this is impossible. You will never be able to logistically get enough of this food from family farming into the school meal program and 30% of the budget would be spent on family farming. Um but because they had evidence that was well reported from the past uh they were able to bring the evidence and say actually it can work. And even though the the attacks and the opposition against the program were for interests that used this argument, they were very clever about formulating the argument. The use of evidence was very powerful in that case because it it meant that the people that were in between said okay, I believe in this now. And then they voted in the Congress to to adopt this particular law. So even though it sometimes can seem completely daunting when you're faced with these very challenging power dynamics smart strategies that employ evidence in smart ways do have a role to play. >> How does this work when governments who have a really important role to play they are very committed to short election cycles. How do you make sure that this long-term commitment is honored? >> There are actions that can be taken to try and bring this long-term view to bear and one of those is the multilateral system. So we work for FAO. FAO has numerous country offices and the presence in countries. It was very fortunate that FAO has been around for getting on for 81 years. Because it has been a steady presence and I don't just say that because I work now for FAO. I point it out that it's around looking at the institutions outside of government but which are connected to government which do last a long time. So one of the jobs that we have for FAO with our mandate of food security nutrition for all for today and tomorrow is to continue with that long-term view and to continue to advocate that to governments but also to give the right advice and the right technical support that encourages governments to actually think in the long-term. And so the the role of the multilateral system is really important here. It's I talk about FAO but of course other UN agencies and elements about that can support this this long-term. So it's about institutions that are beyond government that that have that that have that long-term view that that can really help. Another element is creating a culture inside of government. What I've observed is that cultures can be created amongst really high performing civil servants. We mustn't forget about the role of incredibly smart civil servants who exist in many many countries but most countries probably uh, in in the world. And when you create a culture among those civil servants uh of political of of of commitment, it lasts. So, high-level political commitment is always important for any change. You know, we we know that. History tells us that. But, how to sustain that commitment? You can't rely on necessarily the next political leader coming with the equal level of commitment. In fact, they may want to remove the commitment because they want to have their own show, which again is is normal and and should be expected. But, if the civil servants retain that commitment, they can help uh, reinforce that among their political masters. And and I and I've observed that. And I'm just about to to go on Monday to a city in Brazil called Belo Horizonte. I am very excited about going to Belo Horizonte uh, because I've worked for many years on urban agri-food systems. And they are a legendary city. It must be around 30 years now uh, said, "For our city, food security is paramount." And he has continued for all of years. Mayors have come and gone, but that commitment has stayed. And one of the reasons for that is this continued commitment among the civil servants where this culture has been created among civil servants. That's also really important. So, there's a lot of things that can be done to encourage uh, a shift away from short-term thinking incentivized by political cycles. The key investment that needs to be made is into what we call governance. How decisions are made and who makes them. And investing in structures informal and formal of bringing people together and building that trust. What we see in the world of development, but also in domestic budget allocation, is that investments are made in doing things. In producing particular goals that we care about. Good. You know, that's great. Um, but uh, it's not good if those activities uh, have short-term impact because they're undermined by not considering other elements of the system. But what isn't happening is investment in the relationship building and the governance informal and formal governance structures that are needed to do that. So you said, "Okay, we all need to get together and we need to talk about how we're going to solve this problem. Let's bring people from across the system." To be honest, that just becomes another meeting. So that people have to go to in their busy lives. Remember about people here who are having to make trade-offs about how they spend their time. If you don't resource and invest in those governance structures and decision-making structures that will bring people together, it doesn't happen. So let me give give you an example. There's a really exciting process going on across the African continent right now called the Comprehensive Agriculture Agricultural Development Program. That's CAADP. Yeah, this is CAADP. And strategic priority six of CAADP is on investing in governance and more coherent policies. As And then the the first five objectives are about the the goals and the specific activities. And it's understood by the AUDA-NEPAD the African Union development that this is really really important. Um But is that is that where the investment is going? No. Um it seems, "Okay, we'll get to that when we fix other things." I'm like, "No." >> [laughter] >> You invest in this first because that's what will enable uh the activities that are being undertaken to actually last. Uh that that will enable the activities that are being undertaken to have real impact and to be sustained and to lead to greater resilience. Uh so one of the fundamental shifts that need to be made is to encourage those who are investing, whether it's private investment, whether it's donor investment, whether it's domestic budget allocation, whether it's philanthropy, uh to actually invest in those enabling decision-making environments that bring people together. Because if if we if we don't do that, then we will continue with this vicious cycle of doing a lot, investing a lot, but actually it becomes inefficient. >> How do you know when transformation is actually happening? >> Well, it's a big question whether you know that transformation is actually happening. And it's one of the questions we get most commonly asked uh, by our countries and indeed by external partners, because there's a really great initiative that's co-chaired by um, FAO, uh, called the Food Systems Countdown initiative, which is co-chaired by my fellow director in our statistics uh, division. And they're doing a really fabulous job about tracking the outcomes, what we call the outcomes of of agri-food systems. Uh, dietary diversity, greenhouse gas emissions, uh, um, income of of farmers, those kinds of of metrics, which are the outcomes. And so ultimately that's what we're trying to achieve. And of course, food insecurity, uh, you know, the the sign of a of of transformation is when more people are food secure. And of course, FAO does a wonderful job of tracking that. Um, but that takes a long time to achieve. So, uh, how do you know if the system is changing in the right direction in order to achieve those outcomes? That's the question that we ask. And that's the question that we ask in my division. And so we are innovating and uh, some new ways of of of of looking at this and also learning from others uh, who have been taking different different approaches, complex approaches to evaluation, and more effective approaches to monitoring at the methods that are being used out there. And the answer to your question really is about how do we see relationships changing? For example, has the Ministry of Agriculture got a relationship with the Ministry of Environment? Has the Ministry of Agriculture got a relationship with the Ministry responsible for water? Or are they still in conflict? >> [gasps] >> How does that relationship look? That is an indicator that the system is going in the right direction because we need agriculture and water to talk to each other. And what that tells us is that we need to learn from that. That this is something we need to sustain. This is something that we need to invest in and continue. So it's very very important to have a process of monitoring, learning, and then adaptation or strengthening where things are going right through an ongoing monitoring process so that you can learn this relationship change in the right direction. Now that means that we need to invest more in sustaining it. But this relationship is going in the wrong direction. So let's see if we can invest in reorienting that in a better direction. And and then understanding whether the structures and incentives around that are actually changing. So for example, is that investment then being made? So you can begin to pick up what we call early signals of systems change in the right direction. Are there any successful country examples like success stories that you can share? There were there were lots of countries who have realized that in order to achieve the goals that they want in their countries for food and agriculture that they have to adopt system systems ways of thinking, acting, working together. These countries are committed to making change. They realize they can't do it unless they take a systems approach. So there were many different examples. For example, in Sierra Leone the president realized just how important food and agriculture was to the economy of the country. And therefore brought together high-level presidential council of ministers as well as other governance bodies where more shared decision could be made. And I was uh, chairing a moderating a panel at a agri-food systems conference last year with the Minister of Agriculture from Sierra Leone. And he said something which was very powerful, which he said because he was sitting with the Ministry of the Environment. He realized that the policy goal on increasing domestic rice production, which is one of the policy goals of the government, uh, was going to have negative impact on the environment because it was going to lead to deforestation and so on. So, what they that was because he was sitting with the Ministry of the Environment. And what they did in response to that is to bring some evidence. They did some soil mapping to better understand about where rice expansion would not be so destructive for the environment. And so they brought knowledge into that into that process. Um, the challenge is of course is continuing that which we've already discussed in making sure that that kind of approach is continued into the future. Uh, and that's why embedding this long-term view and and and learning into the system is so important. So, that's that's one good example of change that's taken place. Another example is what happened with FAO support in in Tanzania where they've had a major fisheries challenge. Fisheries is a really good example about where you need to sustain fisheries over the long term. You need fish to feed people and it's very very nutritious food. Uh, and you need to support the livelihoods of fishes. So, if you say, "Okay, in order to feed fish to people in the future, over the short term we need to restrict fishing in order to restore the fisheries." What happens to livelihoods? It's a classic example of a trade-off. Um, and then if you lose if they just move to the cities, they're they're gone. And then when the fisheries come back, who is there to fish? Uh so, you need to consider it. As I said, if if you're interested in long-term food security, you have to consider that element. So, what happened in in Tanzania was that they needed to think about alternative livelihood opportunities. But rather than just imposing things from the top, they uh innovated a community-based governance decision-making structure called beach management units. And those beach management units were there to um to try and to come up with solutions that actually worked for the community. So, some of those livelihood opportunities, for example, were beekeeping and uh producing seaweed. And again, an example of taking a systems approach uh because you're thinking about all of the different goals across the system, but also bringing people who really have have have knowledge of the of the system. Uh that's another example. Another example I can share is from a completely different environment, which is New York City. Uh urban agri-food systems have an incredibly important role to play in transforming food and agriculture uh because of the growing food demand um and the growing number of people living in cities, the growing power um of of cities. And New York City is clearly a hugely wealthy city. Um so, you think, well, you know, they're a unique city, what can we really learn from them? But what was really interesting about what they did uh which was about um public uh food provision uh in the city, of which, you know, they provide millions of of meals uh with a a procurement budget, is that they started to spend that budget differently. They started to spend it on uh businesses. Uh so, they started to source the food from businesses uh which are owned by um minorities and disadvantaged groups. And they started to spend it more on foods that had a lower carbon footprint. And that is is a an example about how they started to invest differently in order to produce co-benefits. Um because uh taking action in a system uh if it can produce co-benefits across those multiple goals as opposed to producing those trade-offs and costs, then again you'll be more efficient in the system. So, while you know that that is a very wealthy city, anyone who is procuring food um whether it's a private sector or the public sector can start to think, you know, whether I've got a small budget or a large budget, how can I spend that that budget a little bit differently uh in order to uh in order to produce those um those goals. >> So, Corina, you're working on making change happen. What brought you to do this work, this very difficult work? And in your journey, what have you learned? >> Yeah, I mean I I came into this work many uh many years ago uh with a real passion for for food and a belief that food could make the world a better place and it was a wonderful multiplier uh because it could bring so many uh bring so many benefits. And um and I've learned many lessons along the way. The The first project that I did uh in food uh after I finished my uh PhD was on um food waste, actually. It was on uh a situation that was increasingly emerging of redistributing um food uh food that would otherwise be wasted uh to people who experience vulnerabilities. And um we move on for 30 years uh getting on for 30 years after that, um I what I learned from that experience uh and what I what I what I reflect on when I think about that experience as a is the first thing I ever did in in food was the importance of building coalitions. Um because of that time I did a I was working as a volunteer at the time. I did a really nice report. I got on the media. I talked to the radio. Everyone's very happy. Um but that those problems still persisted and the the the the challenges I was pointing out at that time by about institutionalizing um food aid to people in a way that might lead to short-term benefits but not long-term solutions didn't really wasn't really taken up. That message wasn't really taken up. And when I look back on it um I think you know what what would have happened if we'd really built a coalition. Uh a broad-based coalition around that issue across the world because it was a global a global issue. And that has there have been changes in that issue and there's fantastic people working to understand that. In fact, what's happened now is that the people who do work in institutionalized food aid in that way do understand and are working now to sustain it. So it so it takes a long time. But this is a consistent lesson that I've learned that change requires um bringing together a broad coalitions. And that those broad coalitions shouldn't always focus on the number one thing that they want to achieve but to focus on a common objective. And to focus on what everybody can agree on and to compromise a little bit along the way. Um because change takes time. Positive change in the direction that we want takes time. So that's the second lesson that I've learned is around iterative change. Now obviously crisis and big changes are welcome when it leads in the in the right direction but often it's about creating a framework in which broader change can can take place and the need for those coalitions of people to come together and and make some compromise towards a towards a shared goal.