Foresight4Food International Workshop

Summary of Proceedings

22-24 May 2018

1

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 0

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 0

1.1 Programme ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Day One – Tuesday 22nd May 2018 ................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Welcome to MUSE and the Foresight4Food Initiative............................................................ 2

2.2 Foresight Methodology ........................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Sharing Foresight Initiatives .................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Closing ................................................................................................................................... 10

3 Day Two – Wednesday 23rd May 2018.......................................................................................... 11

3.1 Scene-setting Presentations ................................................................................................. 11

3.2 The Foresight Proposition ..................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Emerging Food System Issues ............................................................................................... 14

3.4 Tracking Change in Food Systems ......................................................................................... 15

3.5 Perspectives from Key Stakeholder Groups .......................................................................... 17

3.6 Developing the Initiative – Initial Feedback and Working Group Session ............................ 20

3.7 Closing ................................................................................................................................... 23

4 Day Three – Thursday 24th May 2018 ........................................................................................... 24

4.1 Welcome to Agropolis International ..................................................................................... 24

4.2 Insights from NEPAD ............................................................................................................. 24

4.3 Taking the Initiative Forward: Working Group Session ........................................................ 24

4.4 Closing Comments from Patrick Caron ................................................................................. 33

5 Appendix A: Workshop Programme ............................................................................................. 34

6 Appendix B: Participant List .......................................................................................................... 37

List of Acronyms ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

AgMIP Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CASI Conservation Agriculture based Sustainable Intensification

CCAFS CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers

CIRAD French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development

DEVCO Development & Cooperation

DFID Department for International Development

ECI Environmental Change Institute

EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation

FABLE Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land, and Energy Initiative

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FReSH Food Reform for Sustainability and Health

GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation

GLOPAN Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition

ICASEPS Indonesian Centre for Agriculture Socio Economic and Policy Studies

IDDRI Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations

IDS Institute of Development Studies

IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IMPACT International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade

INRA National Institute of Agricultural Research

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPES-Food International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems

ISPC Independent Science and Partnership Council

K4D Knowledge, Evidence and Learning for Development

MAGNET Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool

MIRAGE Modeling International Relationships in Applied General Equilibrium

MUSE Montpellier University of Excellence

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development

RIAPA Rural Investment and Policy Analysis

RUFORUM Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SDIP South Asia Regional Development Program

SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

UN SDSN UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network

WEF World Economic Forum

WUR Wageningen University & Research

1

Summary The Foresight4Food Initiative was initiated by a group of international organisations, research

institutions, business networks, and donor agencies. It seeks to improve foresight and scenario

analysis for the global food system, and strengthen the links between science and forums for

dialogue. The May 2018 workshop was a follow-up to the successful first Foresight4Food workshop

held in Oxford in April 2017. This year’s event was hosted by the Montpellier University of Excellence

(MUSE) with support from ACIAR, GFAR, CIRAD, and the University of Oxford.

Alongside a space for networking and sharing between organisations interested in food system

foresight, the workshop focused on developing a clear strategy for how food systems foresight could

better meet the needs of policy, business, and civil society at different scales. The workshop was

attended by over 60 people representing more 40 organisations.

Over 25 different inputs were given by participants on their foresight related work.

Participants strongly supported the objectives and of the Foresight4Food Initiative and work to

developed action agendas for six themes:

1. Communities of practice for food system foresight users and providers

2. Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work

3. Foresight resource portal, dashboard and communication materials

4. Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional, and

national foresight and dialogue processes

5. Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues

6. Capacity development for enhanced foresight

It was clear from the meeting that there is a huge need and interest in designing narratives for food systems transformation for addressing the whole 2030 Agenda, at all scales from local to national, regional and global. Consequently, a forward-looking approach to food systems is necessary because of the shocks, stresses, and disruptions food systems will experience into the future - foresight methods can help us explore and respond to this turbulent future.

There are many different ways to consider foresight methods and the diversity is a richness and a wealth. Foresight4Food now needs to engage more widely as we move to ensuring improved foresight that can contribute meaningfully to the global dialogue and potentially support normative exercises on desirable paths for the transformation of food systems. Foresight4Food needs to be anchored with existing arenas of dialogue and policy convergence that have legitimacy. The initiative is seeking to provide intelligence and literacy about the future; thus must recognize the political dimensions of any forward thinking process. Key concluding points were: 1. To collectively continue with the Foresight4Food Initiative. It is needed and a good number of

individuals and institutions appear ready to commit themselves to follow-up. 2. Adopt a step by step process of planning and progressing, building on what exists and avoiding

reinventing of wheels. This implies moving beyond the provision of knowledge by demonstrating the capacity to provide intelligence through synthesis and meta-analysis based on transparency and valuing the diversity of foresight works.

2

3. Better identify the boundaries of how Foresight4Food will contribute in connection with stakeholders engaged in decision making and policy convergence.

4. Work towards a substantial rendezvous in 2020 that would draw on work and initiatives that can be mobilized over the coming 2 years and use the 2020 convening as a point to consider the merits, legitimacy, and viability of a larger scale normative foresight exercise.

5. Given the above it is possible to envisage the following activities being carried out over the next 2 years (resources depending):

• Continuing with the sharing, networking, and learning we have begun through an emergent community of practice

• Further developing a portal for collating and providing easy access to core foresight work (e.g. resource portal),

• Providing synthesis of existing work, • Supporting or fostering spin-off initiatives (application at regional, national, local

levels, and hotspots), as the ones suggested by GFAR • Working to anchor the initiative to legitimate decision making and policy

convergence institutions and forums; • Exploring how to look at the monitoring and evaluation of foresight processes

The implication for governance is that in the shorter term there can be a light advisory committee, and perhaps some associated science groups, to guide directions with legitimacy being given by others who are willing to associate with Foresight4Food as partners.

1 Introduction The May 2018 workshop was a follow-up to the successful first Foresight4Food workshop held in

Oxford in April 2017. This year’s event was hosted by the Montpellier University of Excellence

(MUSE) with support from ACIAR, GFAR, CIRAD, and the University of Oxford.

The Foresight4Food Initiative was initiated by a group of international organisations, research

institutions, business networks, and donor agencies. It seeks to improve foresight and scenario

analysis for the global food system, and strengthen the links between science and forums for

dialogue.

The Initiative emerged due to the recognition that foresight work is often fragmented, one-off, and

often not well synthesised or organised in ways that can meet the needs of users within the broader

foresight community. Foresight4Food aims to help provide a more integrated food systems

perspective that better connects concerns of environment, economy, and health, across production,

distribution, and consumption, while taking a global view of issues for emerging and developed

economies. The niche for Foresight4Food is to help strengthen global and regional capacities for

food systems foresight, so as to complement and not duplicate the efforts of other food and

agriculture related initiatives. A core function of Foresight4Food will be to create a community of

practice for providers and users of foresight that contributes to a better understanding of food

systems.

This workshop built on last year’s event. Alongside a space for networking and sharing between

organisations interested in food system foresight, the workshop focused on developing a clear

strategy for how food systems foresight could better meet the needs of policy, business, and civil

society at different scales. It examined key dimensions of food systems change and different

approaches to foresight. Outcomes from the workshop are being used to develop an action plan,

governance arrangements, and a resource mobilisation strategy for taking forward the

Foresight4Food Initiative.

1

1.1 Programme

The workshop programme was designed to enable participants to explore wide diversity of foresight

initiatives and programmes and share knowledge and experience on methodological and operational

issues of foresight within food systems. This workshop differed from the Oxford workshop in 2017

with having a key focus on developing detailed planning for the Foresight4Food Initiative going

forwards (see Appendix A for the workshop programme, and Figure 1 below on the overall workshop

process).

Figure 1 Workshop Process

1.2 Participants

Sixty participants attended and actively participated in the workshop (see Appendix B for the

participant list) representing more than 40 key international organizations, scientific institutions,

donor agencies, foundations, business communities, and youth groups. With a broader

representation than the 2017 workshop, the diversity and depth of expertise allowed for broadening

the experience to other stakeholders, and wider input for future planning of the Initiative.

2

2 Day One – Tuesday 22nd May 2018

2.1 Welcome to MUSE and the Foresight4Food Initiative

Patrick Caron kicked off the proceedings with a formal welcome to the Montpellier University of

Excellence (MUSE) and explained the reasoning behind hosting the follow-up event in Montpellier.

Dr Caron emphasised the key purposes of the meeting:

1. Offering an opportunity to engage as a community of practice, and present a space to

exchange ideas

2. Taking the Initiative forward by starting detailed planning on necessary activities

The diversity and range of food system foresight work was indicated, and the desire to complement

and not duplicate existing and past efforts. The unique organizational presence and support in

Montpellier was highlighted and the strong mandate for taking the Initiative forward was reiterated.

Saher Hasnain, a researcher with the Foresight4Food Initiative and the Environmental Change

Institute’s Food Systems Group thanked Patrick Caron and Jim Woodhill for their crucial role in

taking the Initiative forward since Oxford and went through the workshop process (see Figure 1

above). She introduced the background materials that had been shared with the participants and

presented an institutional and organizational map of key foresight players. Input on the map was

invited and the complexity and diversity of the food system foresight landscape was examined.

2.2 Foresight Methodology Following on the methodological themes identified in the 2017 Oxford workshop, Jim Woodhill

discussed a framework for understanding food systems foresight and scenario analysis (see Figure 2

below) focusing on aspects of prediction vs exploration, quantitative vs qualitative, risk vs

opportunities, social vs scientific processes, scale and time, policy and political influences, and the

context of complex systems. He explored ‘steam trains’ and ‘black swans’ in the context of systemic

risks and transformational opportunities and set the stage for a panel of experts to discuss their

work in the context of the key methodological aspects. Marie de Lattre-Gasquet (CIRAD), Petr Havlik

(IIASA), Robin Bourgeois (CIRAD), Xiaoting Hou-Jones (IIED), and Fabrice deClerck (EAT) presented

briefly on their organizations’ methodological approaches to foresight, which provided a useful

grounding before the day’s sharing of foresight initiatives.

3

Figure 2 Framework for Understanding Foresight

4

2.3 Sharing Foresight Initiatives Following on the success of the sharing sessions in the first Oxford workshop, representatives from

different organizations and institutions shared their initiatives in food systems foresight. The

sessions were useful in forming a foundation of information sharing and mapping out the diversity of

food system foresight work for the rest of the workshop without pretending to an exhaustive

mapping. Below are brief summaries of the inputs given and any associated presentations can be

found on the Foresight4Food website.

2.3.1 Keith Wiebe – IFPRI

Keith Wiebe presented an overview to IFPRI’s foresight activities, which take inputs from crop,

water, climate, and economic models, and produce outputs relevant for poverty, hunger, and the

environment, and the related SDGs. Modelling tools used include IMPACT, MIRAGE, and RIAPA,

while recent studies include the impacts of different investment strategies, costs of ending hunger,

and policy scenarios at different scales. The partners associated with IFPRI have different regional

mandates and enrich the tools used and research produced with context-specific insights. IFPRI

coordinates a food security portal, which is an information sharing platform intended to make their

research outputs more accessible and allow people to look at different scenarios, for different

commodities, in different regions, across timescales.

Figure 3 Keith Wiebe (IFPRI)

5

2.3.2 Fabrice deClerck – EAT & Bioversity International

With an overview into EAT’s activities, and the current EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet,

Health, Dr deClerck explained how EAT is focused on producing healthy and sustainable foods within

the planetary boundaries for a 2050 population. In the current capacities of food production, we are

not producing the ingredients needed for a healthy diet, and instead of just a calorie focus we need

to see how we are going to produce the right kinds of food in the future, and start now. He

highlighted EAT’s cross-institutional work with institutions like the University of Oxford, and the

Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use, and Energy (FABLE) Consortium, and its coordination with

IIASA, UN SDSN, and EAT. Through ‘scenathons’ for each country, the project’s activities are meant

to examine country level ambitions and to reach the pathways and targets set by the FABLE team.

He closed with EAT’s emphasis on collective narrative building, and creating space in which each

sector can meet and create the narratives they need to achieve their sustainability goals.

Figure 4 Fabrice deClerck (EAT)

2.3.3 Petr Havlik – IIASA

Explaining IIASA’s activities and projects, Dr Havlik focused on The World in 2050 project which is

using multi-participant activities to find pathways towards reaching the SDGs. Dr Havlik works on the

modelling of agriculture, forestry, and other land use sectors, and their integration with the energy

sectors. He explained how their approach allows them to participate in integrated assessments of

mitigation pathways. The models demonstrate the hypothetical impacts on highly ambitious

mitigation pathways for different countries for variables like calorie availability. Using a current

project as an example, he explained that their team is working on a model that separates the

production and consumption decisions, and are testing for assessment with extreme weather events

and potential stabilization policies.

6

2.3.4 Olivier Mora – INRA

Speaking about the foresight and simulation approaches to explore contrasted futures of land use

and global food security in 2050, Dr Mora contrasted the Agrimonde exercise (2007-2010) with the

Agrimonde-Terra exercise (2013-2016), and examined the scenarios of the latter. Agrimonde-Terra

was conducted with the collaboration of INRA and CIRAD, and adopted a scenario approach based

on morphological analysis, and scenario simulations with the GlobAgri quantitative platform with 14

world regions. The scenarios were based on a trend analysis of seven key drivers on land use and

food security, looking at the global context, climate change, diets, livestock, and cropping systems.

Two scenarios with extreme land use and food security consequences were ‘metropolization’ and

‘communities-collapse’, while the other three had reduced impacts on land use. These scenarios

have been used at national level to define research agendas, and Agrimonde-Terra is instrumental in

discussing land use and food security decisions with stakeholders.

2.3.5 Martin Melin – SLU

A new Horizon 2020 project, NEXTFOOD is focused on capacity building in agrifood systems, which

brings together 19 partners across the EU, and includes Egypt, India, Chile, and Ethiopia, with the

aim of developing new education and training systems for farmers, advisors, and other actors within

the food system to drive the transition towards sustainability. It will involve a skills inventory,

training sessions, 10 case studies, and an identification of the needs and gaps of knowledge. It will

challenge the traditional ‘commodity’ approach to learning and focus on co-creation of knowledge,

skills, and soft-skills, and will make policy recommendations promoting life-long learning.

2.3.6 Emile Frison – IPES-Food

The 27-member International Panel of Experts uses its legitimacy to bring major issues to decision

makers, and looks at the whole food system using a transdisciplinary approach. It takes a political

economy approach and examines issues of power in the food system, and identifies the factors that

prevent the evolution of current dominant systems. Using this approach, they aim to identify the key

intervention points in the system. This factor is then reflected by other speakers during the

workshop, particularly by Sean deCleene on Day 2. Mr Frison highlighted the panel’s recent reports

on impacts of health, concentration in agri-food through mega-mergers, horizontal and vertical

integration of food institutions, and are currently working on input that will influence the common

agricultural policy in Europe, are planning on convening a food and farming forum at the EU

Parliament in 2019. Mr Frison then discussed the work of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food,

which is working towards food system transformation. One of their key areas of work is on true cost

accounting with support from TEEB.

2.3.7 Thomas Arnold – European Commission

Thomas Arnold discussed the Food2030 institution within the European Commission. Food 2030

convenes annual High Level events with the objective of disseminating successful Research and

Innovation initiatives and contributing to the food nutrition and security science-policy debate. The

EC has also launched the JRC Competency Centre on Foresight in June 2018, which is a dynamic

collective intelligence system assessing 14 global megatrends relevant for Europe’s future.

7

2.3.8 Joost Vervoort (University of Utrecht)& Maliha Muzammil – (ECI)

The CCAFS project develops regional scenarios and uses them for national level policy making, and

brings stakeholders and policy makers together. Communities taking part in the project participate

in challenging policy-relevant scenarios, and use them as a lens to evaluate existing or planned

policies and plans to evaluate them for robustness. The process highlights and challenges existing

assumptions that underlie much of such decision-making. The process leads to finalized policies

(although this does not ensure effective implementation), the scenarios ensure that policies are

inclusive and robust, the process needs flexibility in the project, and a dynamic team in different

areas of the world, and close working relationships with existing policy networks. The RE-IMAGINE

project for anticipatory and climate governance takes the CCAFS objectives a few steps forward and

asks more critical questions around the politics of foresight. With CCAFS and RE-IMAGINE, Dr

Muzammil worked closely with the Bangladeshi planning commission to guide them towards a 5

year economic plan. Using country-specific scenarios, they explore what these futures mean for

Bangladesh, what actions are achievable, how robust the impact pathways are, and how they can be

made more robust.

2.3.9 Kuhu Chatterjee – ACIAR SDIP

Discussing the Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio in South Asia, Ms Chatterjee examined

the food-energy-water nexus in the eastern-Gangetic region of South Asia. The project focuses on

farmers in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. In the first phase, 75,000 farmers used farming practices

based on Conservation Agriculture based Sustainable Intensification (CASI), which has had positive

outcomes in terms of lowering input costs and increasing productivity. In Phase 2, food systems

foresight is one of the five key components of the project. However, engaging policy-makers in the

region in a foresight activity will prove challenging because of the focus on election cycles, a lack of

long-term plans, and difficulties in securing policy buy-in with critical actors.

2.3.10 Pedro L. O. de A. Machado – EMBRAPA

Mr Machado focused on Agropensa, a continuous foresight activity started by EMBRAPA in 2012

aimed at institutional development and as a tool for decision makers. Agropensa’s main objectives

are to monitor key trends and produce information for agricultural research. It is designed to be

anticipatory instead of reactive, and provide information for private organizations and food-related

decision makers. Agropensa has an observatory of trends, analysis and studies, and information

guiding better strategies. He highlighted their most recent Outlook 2030 that examines the future of

Brazilian agriculture in light of mega-trends

2.3.11 Zenia Tata – XPRIZE

Dialling into the workshop from the US, Ms Tata provided an overview of XPRIZE and their

motivations, and their role in foresight work. The underlying motivation of XPRIZE is to incentivize

people to develop futuristic innovations that can transform the trajectory of sectors. Their first

prizes were in the commercial space sector and then the future of medicine and mobility. Now with

a more defined foresight approach they aim for a confluence of technological and social norms. They

assemble platforms of big communities in a particular area, leverage existing research, put a futurist

slant on it in the search for innovation, conduct a deep STEEP analysis for a preferred future state,

and then back cast to understand the haps and white spaces. XPRIZE’s niche is in those gaps, and

particularly when multiple technologies meet in them, e.g. Avatar technology. They also draw on the

8

help of sci-fi writers to write stories around their scenarios to help understand how the technology

will be adopted by the people.

2.3.12 Rachid Serraj – ISPC, CGIAR

The work by the ISPC on key drivers builds on the existing work within and outside the CGIAR

system. The ISPC has started a 2-year process to support system-wide dialogue on foresight, through

a series of studies and workshops. Their focus on smallholder agriculture and future research for

development for the rural poor sets them apart from other initiatives. The process involves five

interacting themes with a methodological framework integrating quantitative and qualitative tools

and models. A key output from this process is a community of practice and a science forum that will

connect people from the region.

2.3.13 Lorenzo Bellu – FAO

FAO primarily uses three types of foresight exercises: Long-term global exercises using multiple

scenarios and building on existing FAO expertise (e.g. Future of Food and Agriculture), short to

medium-term global exercises run with OECD, which emphasise quantitate findings (the OECD/FAO

Outlooks), and thematic regional and country-based exercises (e.g. livestock). The step-wise and

iterative process of foresight and scenario development at FAO was explained. The talk was closed

with an emphasis on how foresight approaches must be used to move an organization forward.

2.3.14 Paula Chalinder (DFID) & Martin Broadley (University of Nottingham)

Ms Chalinder and Professor Broadley discussed the Knowledge, Evidence for Learning Development

Programme (K4D) at DFID, led by IDS which allows for learning across professional boundaries. A

food systems learning journey is a part of the program, connecting DFID staff and other UK

government policy makers working towards building a collective understanding and narrative

around food systems. They emphasised the need of keeping agri-food issues on the policy agenda,

and being mindful about who the foresight community engages with in the future.

2.3.15 Patrick Herlant – DEVCO/C1

The DEVCO/C1 part of the EC is concerned with rural development, food security, nutrition, and

resilience. Their current work on local agri-food analysis and foresight is partly influenced by the

Oxford 2017 Foresight4Food workshop. Mr Herlant highlighted that the rapid changes in the food

system have major implications for the EU particularly in terms of achieving the SDGs. It is therefore

crucial to manage policy trade-offs, e.g. between urban and rural development, and to ensure that

food security remains high on the policy agenda. It is further necessary to reframe traditional food

security investments in a wider food systems perspective and articulate the needs with a foresight

perspective. Their current project is expected to produce initial foresight-based local agri-food

typologies with their associated risks and opportunities to help structure their dialogue, produce

policy briefs, and fine-tune the typologies and methodologies in the second phase.

2.3.16 Charles Owuor – RUFORUM

Providing an overview of the development and evolution of RUFORUM, Mr Owuor provided insights

from the African perspective, and explored how the commitments and flagship programs connect

with RUFORUM Vision 2030. The flagship programs are designed around having universities

contribute to Africa’s growth and development (TAGDev), the designation of anchor universities for

higher agricultural education (RANCH), cultivating excellence in teaching and research (CREATE), and

creating a knowledge hub (K-Hub). RUFORUM’s foresight focus is organized around capacity

9

building, knowledge exchange and dialogue, an online platform, and a community of practice that is

currently 18000 members strong.

2.3.17 Saher Hasnain – ECI

The ‘Connecting local knowledge with global food system’ project is aimed at understanding the

country-level picture for the future smallholder agriculture in Ghana and Zambia, with key global

trends such as urbanization, climate change, and trade. The project hopes to challenge traditionally

dominant narratives around smallholder livelihoods, sustainable intensification, commercialisation,

and the role of smallholders in feeding the increasing global population. It will identify key gaps in

literature and data around smallholder agriculture and the transformations and trade-offs

associated with their development in the future.

2.3.18 Robin Bourgeois – CIRAD

Speaking on co-elaborative scenario building for action, Robin Bourgeois discussed the role of

anticipation in the empowerment process with a number of different groups across the world. The

project is focused on promoting futures literacy, encouraging people to inject the process with their

own knowledge and anticipation. He explained the research framework and the underlying

principles and activities, and presented a range of examples in which the framework has been

successfully applied.

2.3.19 Saeed Moghayer – WUR

MAGNET is a multi-objective foresight tool with a food systems perspective. It is used for global

projections on agriculture, food security, nutrition, and country-specific examples. While it is multi-

scale, allows for the evaluation of impacts, and for linking across other models, it has underlying

assumptions that reduce its reliability in certain situations: the use of representative agents,

optimizing behaviour, and an assumption of equilibrium. Reflecting on the compatibility with the

Foresight4Food Initiative, it was determined that a consistent methodological framework and a

community of practice would be useful going forward.

2.3.20 Sean deCleene – WEF

The WEF Food Systems dialogue was developed on the idea that the food system needs profound

changes, and the success of these changes will depend on trust between key stakeholders, and

useful conversations. The dialogue brings together EAT and WBCSD with WEF and will be focused on

drawing on the key priorities that need to be worked on, bringing in alternative voices, and

identifying the major areas of contention. Independently curated, the dialogues depend on the

expert inputs so that the critical issues and directions can be identified. For example, identifying how

to re-orient where the approximately half a trillion USD are invested annually in agri-food incentives

and subsidies.

2.3.21 Carolyn Mutter, AgMIP

AgMIP’s mission is to provide effective science-based agricultural decision-making models and

assessments of climate variability and change and sustainable farming systems to achieve local-to-

global food security. With a large and diverse network of partners, AgMIP models for sustainable

food systems, coordinates global and regional agricultural assessments, and produces knowledge

reports, models, and data. It conducts regional integrated assessments that are characterized by an

iterative approach with co-designing elements with the stakeholder groups, and conducts analysis

on a multiscale and transdisciplinary basis.

10

Presentations have been made available on the Foresight4Food website.

2.4 Closing The first day was closed with a formal drinks reception, tours of the exceptional facilities at the

Montpellier University of Excellence, and a warm welcome from the office of the Mayor of

Montpellier by Marion Chantal.

Figure 5 Formal welcome to MUSE and Montpellier

11

3 Day Two – Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Day 2 started with a formal introduction to the site from Patrick Caron and Nathalie Modjeska, and a

reiteration of the objectives of the workshop.

Figure 6 Patrick Caron opens Day 2

3.1 Scene-setting Presentations

3.1.1 David Nabarro

Joining remotely, David Nabarro offered his perspectives on foresight, how he has used it in his

career, and examined key characteristics he considered important in moving the Initiative forward.

He emphasised the importance of defining and articulating the problem being addressed while

recognizing the difficulty in approaching the ‘totality’ of the problem. Using the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development to examine foresight, Mr Nabarro acknowledged that despite the

complexity of the plan, it is the first real effort on a universal plan recognizing the interconnections

of the human endeavour; it is people-centric, and designed to leave no one behind. Achieving the

future indicated by the 2030 Agenda would require transformational change with consent and

mutual understanding between all involved parties, people working together towards a shared

narrative, and to ‘nudge’ systems into a better way of working. The presentation ended with the

recognition of the complexity and messiness of the system and a call to tidying up the food system

foresight landscape to an acceptable degree of unification and governability.

12

Figure 7 David Nabarro (UN)

3.1.2 Melissa Wood (ACIAR) & Mark Holderness (GFAR)

Presenting their interest and commitment to the Foresight4Food Initiative, Melissa Wood explained

ACIAR’s background, its cross-scale and cross-sectoral partnerships and their use of foresight in

programming, policy and in designing a broader and ambitious future-looking program. Reiterating

the objectives for this workshop, she emphasised how the shared commonalities and the richness

and diversity represented during the workshop will be valuable in drafting the future steps for the

Initiative.

Mark Holderness started with GFAR’s focus on foresight in recent years, and discussed how the

fragmentation and under-resourcing of global food systems are driving a need for global

connectivity, empowerment of communities for their futures, and a need to work through our

communities to get access to the relevant networks for creating a more desirable future for our food

system.

Figure 8 Melissa Wood (ACIAR)

13

3.1.3 Irene Annor-Frempong, FARA

Dr Annor-Frempong presented an overview of the initiatives and projects in Africa, such as FARA,

CAADP, and the Malabo commitments. While there are significant transformations needed in Africa

to help with yield improvements and market access, there is comparatively little investment in

resolving these issues. However, the networks and initiatives she discussed are attempting to

address them, particularly through working with farmers in order to achieve the SDGs, improve their

livelihoods, and ensure that the markets are working for their benefit as well. Referring to Martin

Bwalya’s talk on Day 3, she pointed to the importance of CAADP in this space and discussed how the

framework is encouraging countries to work towards a common agenda and priorities and linking

people and institutions up in an effort to fast-track the progress towards Agenda 2063. In this

scenario, foresight would be a useful process to complement the existing processes and initiatives,

achieving the SDGs, and the Malabo commitments.

Figure 9 Irene Annor-Frempong (FARA)

3.1.4 Marco Cantillo, FAO

Presenting virtually, Mr Cantillo spoke on the systemic risks and challenges for food and agriculture.

Systemic risks to the food system have the potential for challenging different aspects of food

security by disrupting sustainable supply of food and services. Global trends inflict systemic risks on

the food system, e.g. population increase with income growth drives agricultural demand,

agricultural investment favours high income countries, and GHG emissions stress natural resources

that agri-food systems depend on. Using data from FAOSTAT, these trends were projected over time

and their severity in relation to food systems was discussed. In this context, it will be challenging to

sustainably improve productivity to meet the global food demand, ensure a sustainable resource

base, and prevent transboundary and emerging food system threats. Overall, some of the critical

challenges facing the global food system include reducing inequality, building resilience against

natural disasters and conflict, addressing governance needs, and ending hunger and malnutrition in

all its forms. FAO’s foresight exercises therefore examine possible pathways of transformative

14

development, help identify critical and uncertain trends, and provide insight into the feasibility of

alternative pathways.

3.2 The Foresight Proposition

Presenting on the need for the Foresight4Food Initiative, Professor Tim Benton began with

contextualizing the issues within the food system. With significant differences in what the world is

and should be eating and producing there are clear problems within the food system that need to be

resolved for current and future populations. Focusing on food system transformations also have the

added benefit of influencing all the SDGs, and the need for transformation has been acknowledged

by key organizations within the field. Therefore, ‘business as usual’ cannot be the path for the

future.

Reiterating the foresight framework as presented by Dr Woodhill on Day 1, Professor Benton said

that enhanced foresight is critical for all decisions regarding food systems transformations. The

existing foresight work is fragmented with a varying range of assumptions driving different

conclusions and with limited connection, communication, and synthesis for the foresight

community. The Initiative is meant to support food system transformation through brokering

optimal use of foresight processes and methodologies and strengthening interdisciplinary capacities

for collaboration and research. Connecting the Initiative’s activities to five key areas of future work,

Professor Benton prepared the session for the upcoming working group consultations.

Figure 10 Prof Tim Benton

3.3 Emerging Food System Issues

Providing an overview of the CFS and the HLPE, Professor Rami Zurayk explained the process by

which the HLPE engages with and produces its series of expert reports. He then explained the critical

and emerging issues the panel is currently engaging with:

Anticipating interconnecting futures of urbanization and rural transformation – in order to

explore how the increasing urban populations can be fed alongside rapid rural

transformation and how urban diets are changing in response

Conflict, food security, and nutrition – as conflict has a major effect on food security, it is

important to add resilience to a food system before conflict takes place. It is also necessary

15

to examine the role of women in food security during conflicts. These findings draw on and

will be relevant to the current situation in Syria

Inequality – addressing vulnerability and the needs of marginalized groups in these areas of

concern. While power relations are a significant factor in this emerging issue, it is vital

recognize that power is a constant running thread through all of these

Impact of international trade – on food security and nutrition

Agroecology – the status and role of agroecology in the context of uncertainty and change

Agrobiodiversity and genetic diversity – in addressing food security and nutrition for a

transforming future population

Food safety – a significant problem now, which will continue to be a major food security and

safety issue in the future

New technology – what does innovative and developing technology have to offer for the

future of food and how can we forecast this?

Governance – who are the people and institutions making the decisions and how is (and

should) the food system be governed

Figure 11 Prof Rami Zurayk

3.4 Tracking Change in Food Systems

John Ingram (ECI) provided a refresher for the food systems concept, examining food system

‘activities’, carried out by food system ‘actors’, influencing and influenced by a range of ‘drivers’,

resulting in ‘outcomes’. These outcomes are then connected with a range of environmental and

health problems, such as antimicrobial resistance in livestock and humans.

Connecting the food systems with foresight, Dr Ingram highlighted the importance of stresses and

weak signals, reflecting on Dr Woodhill’s earlier talk on the foresight approach. He explained that in

food systems foresight, it is necessary to differentiate between a ‘stress’ and a ‘shock’, or an

‘interruption’ and a ‘disruption’, as both situations occur over different time scales. He highlighted

that while many problems are discussed in the food system foresight world, it is important to note

that there are many positive avenues that have not been adequately explored, such as the potential

16

of multiple options for cooperation, which once mapped and governed, offer multiple plausible

futures.

Reiterating the value of identifying drivers and big issues in the food system, Dr Ingram asked the

workshop participants to self-organize into groups, examine the infographics put up on the walls and

think about the information provided in terms of the aspects of the food system and their

implications for foresight.

Some of the key themes emerging from these discussions are listed below:

Increasing crop losses and waste, alongside increasing yields – is the food system becoming

less efficient? How can foresight help optimize it?

Micronutrient deficiencies and bio-fortification in relation with food prices and markets for

poor and nutritionally deficient populations

How can foresight help us think about technology and value-chains methods in terms of

food affordability and availability?

How can foresight help us explain and avoid the mismatch between food production and

consumption?

Cultural diversity of diets

Understanding the implications of shocks for food system actors

Which levers and choices can be emphasised on because of their potential for amplification

How to re-orient agri-food business and current investments to arrive at desired futures?

How can foresight help us short-cut impacts like obesity and diabetes in efforts to achieve

zero hunger?

How can you best use the marketing machinery of the private sector in a positive way for

building a positive food future?

Figure 12 John Ingram (ECI)

17

Figure 13 Examining Infographics

3.5 Perspectives from Key Stakeholder Groups

3.5.1 Sean deCleene – Private Sector, WEF

Reflecting on his career within the private sector, Mr deCleene focused on the value of creating

‘tipping points’ linked to foresight within the food system instead of trying to achieve incremental

changes. While large and small private enterprises may differ in their timeframes of response, they

still need tipping points in order to make major ideological and operational shifts. Given these

realities, it becomes important to identify the critical nodes of change in the systems, the linkages

between the critical areas of interest, and what champions and critical actors need to be brought

into the discussion to create the tipping point. It will be important to create a game changing space

with a major player within the field (e.g. ICT companies) and cultivate their ability with a foresight-

oriented approach to create an obvious tipping point.

Figure 14 Sean deCleene (WEF)

18

3.5.2 Agnes Martin - Private Sector, Danone

Representing Danone, Ms Martin highlighted that as a key player in the food field discussions around

food and foresight are critical, particularly around the identification of big trends. She explained the

importance of their participation in the FReSH Initiative, which is a platform of 40 companies trying

to achieve sustainable diets through a variety of ways. She highlighted the four key priorities that

Danone would be working on in the future, besides their work with FReSH:

1. Food loss and waste

2. Dietary shifts

3. Food supply chains

4. True value of food

She explained that Danone recognizes their role in bringing about change in the above-mentioned

priorities, but as a big company are fairly less flexible in the magnitude of change they can make,

particularly because of pressure from retailers. In spite of this, they are moving towards a more

consumer-centric approach. She closed her talk on the importance of moving from punishment

towards incentive in driving transformative change.

Figure 15 Agnes Martin (Danone)

3.5.3 Achmad Suryana – Policy, ICASEPS

Professor Suryana briefly explained the current food system development mechanisms in Indonesia,

which involves eleven ministries (each with their own differing priorities) at the national level. With

a decentralized system that gives significant autonomy at district levels, the system makes

coordinating and integrating food systems policies extremely challenging and with a major

underlying political aspect. In this particular context, he saw the Foresight4Food Initiative serving the

following functions:

Introducing the foresight approach to top management of food system actors, e.g. ministers

Empowering planning units in each related ministry with the foresight approach

Transferring knowledge to selected research and academic institutions

Easy access to sources of knowledge on foresight and food system issues

Exchange of information and experience of the Initiative through workshops and training

19

Figure 16 Prof Achmad Suryana (ICASEPS)

3.5.4 Paula Chalinder – Donor, DFID

Ms Chalinder emphasised that the actors in this field often have multiple roles. DFID for example, is

a donor while also being a user of foresight data and analysis. She highlighted that while further

work on developing foresight analysis is an uncontested and valuable need, it is important to

evaluate who is using this information right now. Being mindful about bringing together and

activating foresight analysis with a theory of change, and deciding how stakeholder groups use their

collective time and commit to a deliberate process to make that change happen is going to be an

enormous success in this area. She reflected Sean deCleene on the importance of leadership,

governance, and representativeness going forward, and the need of making these decisions as early

in the process as possible.

3.5.5 Ivan Kent – Global platform, GLOPAN

Giving an introduction to GLOPAN, Mr Kent explained how the panel is interested in using foresight

analysis at country levels, using their recent foresight report as an example. He discussed how

GLOPAN uses their convening power to communicate the results of their reports to the countries in

question by engaging with local leaders and decision-makers to connect with their own interests.

They focus on communicating their findings in ways that answer key questions like how the big

issues influence the local stakeholders, the situation and data in their country and region, what

solutions have worked in other parts of the world, and what recommendations are suggested.

3.5.6 Kimberly Pfeifer – Civil Society, Oxfam

Reflecting on her experience at bridging Oxfam and their civil society partners with the research

community in the agriculture and food space, Dr Pfeifer gave an overview of some of Oxfam’s

activities: trend and horizon scanning for strategy planning, global web-based dialogue platform on

the future of agriculture, scenario and foresight activities with stakeholders, a scan of promising

innovations in Africa, and global mapping of food systems. She finds that while the efforts are

rewarding, ‘bridging’ is a very difficult process requiring persistence and humility. Unlike other

sectors, the civil society is behind in embracing foresight, and would need a strong evidence base for

understanding its value for them. Data transparency and accessibility is a crucial barrier for them in

20

engaging with the field, demonstrating the value of foresight as a viable mechanism in engaging with

government and private sectors, and to adapt and respond to the shifting and shrinking space

available to them would be the most important role the Initiative could play in the field.

3.5.7 Sébastien Treyer – IDDRI

Reflecting on the learnings from the six foresight workshops held for the GCARD 2010 and 2012, the

key messages on foresight producers emerged around the necessity of community of practice

(through structured and organized discussions among foresight producers that increases capacity of

anticipation), rely on a pluralism of approaches, and ensure that existing and future foresight

frameworks are challenged and questioned by the community. He highlighted the foresight is not

just about producing scenarios, but also how the discussion is organized. The implicit assumptions

must be challenged, which is why a pluralistic debate is necessary – a key role for the

Foresight4Food Initiative.

3.6 Developing the Initiative – Initial Feedback and Working Group Session

Day two ended with an introduction to the working groups for Day 3 and a plenary discussion on the

relevance of the Forsight4Food proposition.

Initially five focus areas for Foresight4Food were proposed:

1. Communities of practice for food system foresight users and providers

2. Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work

3. Foresight resource portal, dashboard and communication materials

4. Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional, and

national foresight and dialogue processes

5. Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues

Following discussion it was agreed that these were the appropriate priorities but that a sixth area

should be added, that was initially conceived as cross cutting:

6. Capacity development for enhanced foresight

21

Figure 17 working group session

Feedback on the key areas of focus for the Initiative were charted out in a mind map following

feedback from the room, reproduced below in Figure 18. Note that the numbers indicate the

Initiative’s activities as described in the Concept Note.

Figure 18 Key focus areas for the Initiative

Feedback on the on the Foresight4Food proposition and concept note was overall positive with clear

support for taking the initiative forward around the focus areas identified. Within this context

additional feedback was:

Foresight needs to be seen not as an endpoint but a tool for broader objectives and so

Foreisght4Food needs to make its wider purpose very explicit.

There is a need to provide a synthesis of foresight works and information in ways that are of

value and interest for ‘end-users’. A smart and transparent way is needed to explain where

and why foresight studies arrive at different conclusions or perspectives and controversies

(organise controversies, analyse it and be transparent about it).

Foresight4Food can help ensure that researchers are asking the right questions and with

linking them and end-users.

It will be critical to focus on national and regional scales as well as the global and important

to work on foresight that is relevant to local and national scales.

22

It is crucial for foresight to be a process of engaging stakeholders in how problems are

framed and understood, rather than just focus on problem solving.

It is important to emphasize the whole story about food systems including both risk and

opportunities.

While capacity building for foresight is a cross cutting need it also needs to be emphasised as

a key focus area on its own, otherwise there is a risk it will be neglected.

Foresight4Food needs to recognise that developing foresight will be an iterative and

“circular” process rather than a linear one.

Important to look at how foresight help to bring about change so need to focus on “theory

of change” for foresight with clear pathways indicators related to drivers, actors, activities,

and outcomes.

Community of practice is important but need to carefully understand what is needed to keep

the Community of Practice together? Important to explore ways of setting up a citizen

community of practice and not just having purely organizational community of practice.

Important issues to include in the Initiative: energy, micronutrients, the how of managing

demand, fisheries, etc.

Be aware of private sector actors’ involvement. Identify tipping points, game changers (also

outside food sector: ICTs and Insurance), and build leadership roles to attract private sector

players.

Create “safe spaces” within the pathways in which innovators and entrepreneurs could work

together with other actors to find opportunities and reduce risks.

The key aspects of the feedback were also charted out in a mind map reproduced below in Figure

19:

Figure 19 Feedback on concept note

23

3.7 Closing

Professor Andrew Campbell, ACIAR presented the closing comments for Day 2, reflecting on the

inputs and discussions thus far. The richness and diversity within food systems foresight was

acknowledged, and the organizing team, particularly the efforts of Dr Woodhill, Dr Benton, and Dr

Caron was thanked for the effort put in the development of the conceptual framework. While there

may be a tension between those within the foresight field who are skilled at examining and adding

to the depths of methodologies, tools, and models, and those who ‘want to save the world’, it is vital

to acknowledge that both schools of practice are necessary and important. Expressing his pleasure

at the evidence of memory in workshops like this, he said that it is essential that new initiatives build

on past events, instead of duplicating and reinventing.

Comparisons with the IPCC presented a useful heuristic device, particularly in terms of common

goals: while the IPCC collective may have diversity in ways of achieving the goal around

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is clear consensus on the goal. This

may not be true for the foresight in food systems community. However, that may not be a

drawback, because the initiative can help humanity identify the kind of food system they want, and

ways of achieving it. This would be particularly important in creating a healthy and sustainable food

system, where foresight will play a crucial role in illuminating trends for transformation.

Touching on the discussions around synthesis, he said that synthesis exercises must be driven by

user needs and that such exercises can and should take multiple forms beyond a publication, i.e.

events or training courses. In ACIAR’s experience, a good synthesis product is rarely a publication,

and usually a product with a strong participatory dimension. He said that it would be vital to

contribute to the knowledge seeking behaviour of policy makers, by understanding the knowledge

products they need, and by becoming a well-respected and well-connected trusted source they can

draw upon. He closed with emphasising that the messiness and plurality within this field is a strength

and he would be keen in seeing how the Initiative will leverage their knowledge and skills in

managing and coordinating the food systems foresight field.

24

4 Day Three – Thursday 24th May 2018

4.1 Welcome to Agropolis International

Bernard Hubert, former chair and current advisor of Agropolis International chair opened the day

and welcomed the participants to Agropolis. He described the diversity of membership of the

Agropolis association and highlighted that because of their engagement with food, agriculture, and

biodiversity, and the participation of key research organizations from other countries, Agropolis

International is key stakeholder in the food system foresight world.

Reflecting on Andrew Campbell’s closing comments from Day 2, Bernard agreed on the strength in

diversity in the foresight partners, reiterated that foresight is a learning process for everyone

involved, and encouraged creativity and exploratory design in the collective efforts towards

innovation.

4.2 Insights from NEPAD

Presenting virtually, Dr Martin Bwalya focused his presentation on three key issues. First, to see how

foresight can complement the activities aimed at achieving Africa’s Agenda 2063. Although foresight

is a valuable tool in designing solutions, it is necessary to ensure coordination to address the

fragmentation of many initiatives, and provide capacity for the relevant user groups. Crucially,

examination is needed to see how foresight can be made relevant and compelling for politicians with

a very short ‘lifespan’ in the government. Secondly, identifying and cultivating the conditions needed

for the success of the Foresight4Food Initiative in the context of value addition. Dr Bwalya

considered that the participation arrangements across sectors (inclusivity and support for practical

applications), problem-solving oriented foresight (understanding contextual problems), governance

that leverages existing collaborations, and providing appropriate capacity building support would be

vital. Finally, NEPAD is working already to consolidate its capacities on foresight by conducting

future-oriented food system studies looking at pathways to zero hunger by 2025, diversity in food

baskets in the context of climate change, etc. These activities are responding to an active demand

for projections and future-oriented knowledge products by CAADP member states, and those

interested in achieving Agenda 2063.

4.3 Taking the Initiative Forward: Working Group Session

Building on the working group session from Day 2, Jim Woodhill reminded the working groups to

examine the purpose of each theme under examination, consider the broad outcomes, the activities

and partners necessary for achieving those outcomes, and explore the different levels of

implications for each area. The workshop used ‘ritual dissent’ as a process of getting feedback and

reworking arguments and business plans. Two rounds of ritual dissent were conducted, ensuring

that each group got feedback from at least two others, and had the opportunity to process and

integrate the input into their plans.

25

Figure 20 'Ritual dissent'

After lunch, participants from each group reported back their key findings to the room. Professor

Rami Zurayk then chaired a session on a discussion of the anticipated governance for the Initiative

going forward. The following themes and messages emerged:

Perceptions of the Foresight4Food Initiative:

There is definite value of bringing together the diverse stakeholders around the common

purpose

Important to have clarity in ultimate objectives of the Initiative

Potentially too ambitious in its mandate – need to develop step by step

Time will be needed to precisely develop the activities and the tools to support the work

would be helpful to map the relationship between the Initiative’s objectives, user needs, and

providers

Examine the foreseeable risks if the Initiative were to fail

The foresight process and anticipatory could be used to explore the future of the Initiative

itself – perhaps more of such process could have been used in the workshop

Governance:

Need vision and ambitious thinking to drive the process

Needs to be an open and flexible structure with not too much of a monitoring or controlling

superstructure

Need to have criteria for who is engaged, partnering or funding to ensure quality

management processes, credibility and transparency

Need to be clear on different models - a forum for developing innovative and creative ways

of thinking of the future or, a closed system of future-enlightened experts to guide people to

action, the latter is not desirable

A decision would be needed on the independence and/or the neutrality of the governance

group

Identify clear mechanisms for determining membership or representation in the steering or

advisory groups

26

Link with existing bodies with legitimacy and convening powers, e.g. CFS

Potential for organizing the effort into three groups, i.e. one for handling

comparison/synthesis of the technical aspects of foresight, one for exploring potential

communities, and a third coordinating body working between the first two

Need sufficient legitimacy and tangible governance to encourage commitment of time,

expertise, and funding from participating organizations

Foresight approach and method:

Need a process of qualifying foresight methods and engaging the foresight actors

A food system approach is necessary to overcome the fragmentation in the food and

agriculture landscape

Need to ensure a focus that includes southern countries within a global food system

approach

Important to ensure, move to, a demand-driven way of supporting foresight rather than a

science supply-driven exercise

Help to identify where food systems related academic studies could be strengthened within

a curriculum on food system foresight

There is real value in creating accessible and understandable overall approach to foresight

for those working in the sector

Change is often driven by emotions not just facts so need to understand better the link of

foresight to the emotions of change processes and how perspectives change (in private

sector, politicians, industry, citizens, etc.)

Foresight is dealing with highly complex interactions and so understanding complexity

thinking as a foundation for foresight is critical

Need to link with wider issues such thinking as ecosystem services and integrate into

foresight to bring added value

Partners, Practitioners, and Activities:

Need to be clear on what activities would be core to Foresight4Food for its complementary

role to other works and which are borderline

Important to identify clearly the institutions who will summarise and make the foresight

method and information available

Create a database of existing resources that can function as a resource for all foresight work

Identify what capacity development is needed at what scales to support foresight

Develop mechanisms to nurture the diversity of perspectives, cultural systems of thinking,

and initiatives

Foresight activities have the potential of influencing people and ecosystems

Find ways to work around the risk of competing objectives between foresight partners,

despite shared primary objective

Ensuring inclusivity and representation by relevant and necessary stakeholder including from

wider stakeholder groups such as food industry, military, insurance, etc.

From this meeting it is necessary to have greater input from foresight practitioners to turn

this planning into practical action

27

Value in engaging with the ‘users’ as practitioners in developing narratives and testing the

future

Need for full-fledged partnership with capacity building (instead of symbolic representation)

of under-represented groups such as youth organizations

Each group’s conclusions are summarized below, with each action being taken forward by the

Steering Group in the upcoming months:

4.3.1 Theme 1: Communities of Practice for food system foresight users and providers

Purpose:

Promoting, enabling and improving interaction and credibility for stakeholders in foresight activities

to enable food system transformation

Needs:

Information synthesis and organization

Methodology development and improvement

Co-creation of narratives

Inclusiveness in foresight communities

Justification:

A need for cross-cutting, accessible, and credible communities of food system foresight that allow

and encourage creative dialogue, collaboration, and broad and inclusive participation

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Civil society, business, military, agri-business stakeholders, developing country governments, policy

makers and researchers

Role of F4F:

Central coordinating role for providing the drive and ownership for the community of practice

Resource Need:

1. Individuals for developing and maintaining an online community of practice

2. Framework for the organization and support of space and events (e.g. webinars and blogs)

for information exchange and creative dialogue

3. Social media experts for creating and maintaining a communications strategy for the

community

Process and Activities:

A series of cross-cutting activities contributing towards knowledge brokering and are focused on

practitioners and users of foresight processes:

1. Creating and managing a directory of key foresight providers and users

2. Organizing and supporting space and events for creative dialogue and learning

3. Sharing data, methodologies, processes and models

28

4. Organizing foresight technology events to promote cross-fertilisation and active engagement

Implications (organization and governance):

A cross-cutting and brokering hub of activities and communities that can provide credibility and

trustworthiness.

4.3.2 Theme 2: Synthesis and analysis of existing foresight work

Purpose:

Analysing, mapping, and synthesising food systems foresight studies in order to support the

knowledge and intelligence needed to support transformative change.

Needs:

Database of foresight processes and initiatives

Community of foresight practitioners and researchers who can participate in synthesis

activities

A well-mapped out landscape of gaps, priorities, and assumptions within the field

Justification:

There is a need for knowledge and intelligence that can support the transformative change enabling

sustainable development, particularly for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development this

requires a better synthesis of food systems foresight work.

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Knowledge producers and knowledge users in foresight to allow for feedback, but particularly key

research institutions and global agencies working at national, regional and global scales.

Role of F4F:

Multiple roles in brokering, mentoring and networking to create processes that can be used by

national and regional systems, there is current no institution supporting this function.

Resource Need:

Experts for conducting the analyses and syntheses exercises

Coordinators for engaging the community of practice

Web portal for providing a common space of engagement and information sharing

Process and Activities:

1. Creating a framework that can support different syntheses for multiple purposes

2. Engage the community of practice for agreement on principles, boundaries, and typologies

of syntheses

3. Populate and analyse the current food system foresight landscape

4. Disseminate results in an accessible form

29

Implications (organization and governance):

An organizational system that calls for multiple specialisations to help with brokering, mentoring and

networking, with the accessible networks and partnerships that lend the technical legitimacy that

synthesis exercises will require.

4.3.3 Theme 3: Foresight resource portal, dashboard, and communication materials

Purpose:

Attracting attention towards foresight in food systems, ‘taking temperature’ of the field, fostering

information exchange, analysis of information, and providing a space for information exchange and

discussion.

Needs:

A systematic needs assessment carried out with users is needed, however, crucial needs are:

A search engine and resource repository pointing people on who is doing what, where

Dashboard on key trends and drivers in food systems

Resources on foresight, such as models, approaches, and methods

Topic and theme clustering

Typology of foresight approaches

Communication between users

Justification:

Communication and resources are needed to empower users to use foresight work on agri-food

systems.

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Government, agribusiness, civil society, and universities – the emerging network involved

Foresight4Food with additional engagement from regional and national partners.

Role of F4F:

Depending on the resources available, F4F can function as a key point of contact and coordination

from which the above activities can be run.

Resource Need:

0.5 FTE communication manager/strategist for Year 1 & 2 – for creating and managing a

database of users

Information specialist for Year 1 – for organizing information and managing search capacity

Web designer for Year 1 – creating a crowdsourced information space and the dashboard

Minimum funding: 500,000 USD cash, with equivalent in kind

Process and Activities:

1. Creating and managing users

2. Creating an architecture for organizing foresight information

30

3. Creating a ‘customer service’ tool for managing risk and addressing user needs

4. Creating an interactive and accessible dashboard of information

5. Developing a stratified communication and advocacy strategy based on audience

segmentation

Implications (organization and governance):

Minimalist organizational structure, acting as a point of coordination for the team running the

resource, and eventually the community of practice.

4.3.4 Theme 4: Bridging hub for linking foresight users and providers to support global, regional,

and national foresight and dialogue processes

Purpose:

Developing a brokering hub to support location or thematic focused foresight exercises to enable

them access to methodology, data and foresight facilitation expertise and connect to a wider body

of food systems foresight work.

Needs:

Expertise and competencies for translating the demands and results of foresight activities

Clarifying the roles and activities of the different stakeholders in a foresight process

Identifying the demands and needs for foresight processes

Managing ‘spill-over’ across national boundaries

Access to good practices and avoiding ‘re-inventing the wheel’

Justification:

A need for supporting foresight processes in a systemic way across scales for agri-food stakeholders,

translating the demands and results from foresight processes, and the need for improving future

policies in this field.

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Community of practice, line ministries, GFAR, FARA, NEPAD, policy makers, donors, civil society

actors, and business networks.

Role of F4F:

As a brokering hub for crucial foresight partnerships and associated activities.

Resource Need:

1. Dedicated individuals for managing partnerships

2. Resource portal through which key partners can exchange foresight materials and insights

3. Individuals and resources for optimising access and improving accessibility of foresight

resources

31

Process and Activities:

(An iterative set of activities)

1. Promoting forward thinking activities in agri-food systems across spatial scales

2. Connecting policy makers with foresight practitioners

3. Catalysing and translating foresight and anticipatory activities

4. Ensuring accessibility of foresight materials

5. Facilitating experience sharing by foresight practitioners and policymakers

6. Monitoring, evaluating, and conducting quality control of foresight activities

7. Reducing transaction costs in engaging ‘users’

Implications (organization and governance):

A central coordinating role that manages partnerships and networks, emphasising legitimacy and

accountability.

4.3.5 Theme 5: Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues

Purpose:

Identifying and brokering new foresight work on gaps and emerging issues to ensure a full systems

approach and that foresight studies remain current.

Needs:

Individuals for carrying out foresight research and analyses

Managed insights from existing institutions and forums (e.g. HLPE)

Resource for running major foresight event in 2020

Undertaking an initial gaps analysis

Justification:

Addressing the SDGs require a holistic food system perspective and better tools for looking into the

future at relevant scales, and existing thinking and practice is not fulfilling the demand.

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Balance of foresight practitioners, funders, agri-food stakeholders.

Role of F4F:

Either as a central fully-funded secretariat supported by an international coordinating group, or a

central coordinating body commissioning research and event organization from external partners.

Resource Need:

A 4 person secretariat, or as an alternative, an external group commissioned to identify gaps.

Process and Activities:

1. Collation and meta-analysis of initiatives to identify existing and emerging issues

2. Prioritisation of activities

32

3. Organize and run a core event in 2020 intended to present meta-analysis

Implications (organization and governance):

The Initiative’s organization and governance will be heavily dependent on resources and credibility

of associated partners.

4.3.6 Theme 6: Capacity development for enhanced foresight

Purpose:

Developing the capacity to communicate, use foresight results, train, and create and facilitate

foresight exercises.

Needs:

Access to data and information

Ability to merge formal foresight exercises

Organizational skills

Foresight for the initiative’s activities

Justification:

Capacity is needed to ensure that key stakeholders within the food systems know how to

understand, use, communicate, and run their own foresight exercises given their specific purposes.

Collaborations and Partnerships:

Engage with traditional food and agriculture stakeholders, sociologists, business actors, civil society,

policy makers, and usually marginalized groups (i.e. youth) in food systems.

Role of F4F:

As a broker to supply the needed capacity, either through outsourcing the training needs, or working

through a model similar to RUFORUM.

Resource Need:

At the very least, 2 people, 3 workshops, 1 report, and 1 website, about 250,000 USD/year over 5

years for the common framework.

Process and Activities:

1. Curriculum development (graduate courses, professional short courses, CPD, etc.)

2. Creating and disseminating manuals or guides to foresight processes

3. Training courses and workshops on specific capacity issues, e.g. foresight models,

communication, etc.

4. Advocacy activities to embed and influence foresight in policy and practice

5. Developing and maintaining an online platform with experts

33

Implications (organization and governance):

Foresight4Food would need to create accountability, legitimacy, and credibility system for the

training and capacity building exercises, e.g. by associating itself with existing networks such as CFS.

The primary function will be to facilitate and support a foresight framework.

4.4 Closing Comments from Patrick Caron

Patrick Caron closed the proceedings with reflections on the workshop process and future directions for the Initiative. The need for designing narratives around food system transformations that will be able to address the 2030 Agenda, engaging with the foresight community to contribute to global dialogue and action, and anchoring food systems foresight in existing, legitimate areas of dialogue and policy was re-iterated. From the Oxford workshop in 2017, the engagement at Montpellier has resulted in clarity of need and direction for the Initiative, with the active engagement of knowledge institutions, donor and development agencies, private sector, regional organizations and civil society. The session ended with thanks for the organizers, MUSE, Agropolis International, the funding partners, and an entreaty to ‘enjoy, be creative, thoughtful, deliver, and decide’.

Figure 21 Group photo with participants

34

5 Appendix A: Workshop Programme

Foresight4Food International Workshop

22-24 May, 2018

Day 1: Tuesday 22/05/2018

Venue: Old Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier

09:30 – 10:00 Welcome Coffee (Salle Dugès)

10:00 – 10:30 Welcome and Introductions (Salle Macabies)

Speakers:

Saher Hasnain (Environmental Change Institute)

Patrick Caron (MUSE)

10:30 – 12:00 Foresight methodology seminar and master class (Salle Macabies)

Facilitator: Jim Woodhill (Environmental Change Institute)

Panel:

Robin Bourgeois (CIRAD)

Xiaoting Hou Jones (IIED)

Marie de Lattre-Gasquet (CIRAD)

Petr Havlik (IIASA)

Fabrice deClerck (EAT

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (Salle Dugès)

13:30 – 15:30 Sharing and discussion of current foresight work from (Salle Macabies)

Chair: Melissa Wood

Speakers:

Keith Wiebe (IFPRI)

Fabrice deClerck (EAT)

Petr Havlik (IIASA)

Avinash Kishore (IFPRI)

Bunmi Ajilore (GFAR)

15:30– 16:00 Break (Salle Dugès)

16:00 -18:00 Sharing and discussion of current foresight work from (con’t) (Salle

Macabies)

Chair: Santiago Alba (IDRC)

Speakers:

Cynthia Rosenzweig (AgMIP)

Zenia Tata (X Prize)

Joost Vervoort (CCAFS)

Rachid Serraj (ISPC)

Lorenzo Bellu (FAO)

Sean deCleene (WEF)

Paula Chalinder (DFID)

Patrick Herlant (EC)

Saher Hasnain (ECI)

Emile Frison (IPES)

18:00 Guided visit of Montpellier Historical Botanical Garden

19:00 Welcome reception (Cour d’honneur of the Old Faculty of Medicine)

35

Day 2: Wednesday 23/05/2018

Venue: Old Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier

08:30 – 09:00 Formal welcome and introduction to Foresight4Food Initiative (Salle des

Actes)

Speakers:

Patrick Caron (MUSE) Jim Woodhill (ECI)

Melissa Wood (ACIAR) Mark Holderness

(GFAR)

09:00 – 10:00 Scene-setting: emerging systemic risks and transformational opportunities

in food systems - the need for food systems foresight (plenary

presentations and discussion) (Salle des Actes)

Chair: Lise Korsten (UoP)

Speakers:

David Nabarro (UN) Irene Annor-

Fremong (FARA)

Marco Sanchez-Cantillo (FAO) Carin Smaller (IISD)

10:30 – 11:00 Break (Salle Dugès)

11:00 – 13:00 Tracking change in food systems: key dimensions and critical trends and

uncertainties that will shape the future (group work) (Salle Macabies & Salle

Bonaventure)

Facilitator: Jim Woodhill

13:00 – 14:00 Lunch (Salle Dugès)

14:00 – 14:45 User needs: shaping food systems foresight for policy, business, civil

society, think tanks and international collaboration (presentations and

group discussion) (Salle Macabies & Salle Bonaventure)

Chair: Ammad Bahalim

Speakers:

Sean deCleene (WEF)

Achmad Suryana (ICASEPS)

Kimberly Pfeifer (Oxfam(

Emile Frison (Bioversity)

Paula Chalinder (DFID)

14:45 – 15:15 What can be learned from past foresight processes: outlining the

proposition for taking Foresigh4Food forward (Salle des Actes)

Speakers:

Sebastien Treyer (IDDRI)

Tim Benton (UoL)

15:15 – 15:45 Break (Salle Dugès)

15:45 – 17:15 Developing the Initiative – working groups (Salle des Actes)

17:15 - 17:30 Concluding Observations (Salle des Actes)

Speaker: Andrew Campbell (ACIAR)

18:30 Transport by bus to Château Puech-Haut

19:00 – 21:00 Conference dinner and informal networking (Château Puech-Haut)

21:00 Transport by bus to the Old Faculty of Medicine

36

Day 3: Thursday 24/05/18

Venue: Agropolis International

08:30 Transport by bus to Agropolis International

9:00 – 9:10 Welcome to Agropolis Speaker: Bernard Hubert

9:10 – 10:15 Sharing reflections on the Foresight4Food Proposition and five key

areas (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)

Chair: Tim Benton

10:15 – 11:15 Detailed development of Foresight4Food Working Areas – Session One

(group work) (Salle Badiane)

Facilitator: Jim Woodhill & Monika Zurek

11:15 – 11:30 Working Coffee (Mezzanine)

11:30 – 12:30 Detailed development of Foresight4Food Working Areas – Session Two

(Salle Badiane)

Facilitator: Jim Woodhill & Monika Zurek

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (Salle Vanille)

13:30 – 14:30 Sharing, discussing and agreeing on priority actions (plenary) (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)

14:30 – 15:00 Final discussions and reactions - Mobilising the Foresight4Food

Initiative (Amphithéâtre Louis Malassis)

Speakers:

Mark Holderness (GFAR)

Patrick Caron (MUSE)

15:00 – 15:30 Coffee and final networking / goodbyes (Mezzanine)

16:00 Transport by bus to the Old Faculty of Medicine

37

6 Appendix B: Participant List Org Title Full Name Position

Agropolis Int

Dr Bernard Hubert President

IDRC Dr Santiago Alba Associate Director Food Security

FARA Dr Irene Annor-Frempong Director, Research and Extension

EC Mr Thomas Arnold Advisor for the Sustainable Bioeconomy

FAO Dr Lorenzo Bellu Team Leader

UoL Prof Tim Benton University of Leeds

CIRAD Dr Robin Bourgeois Senior Researcher

DFID Prof Martin Broadley Senior Research Fellow

NEPAD Dr Martin Bwalya Head of the Comprehensive Africa Development Programme

ACIAR Prof Andrew Campbell CEO

FAO Mr Marco Sánchez Cantillo Deputy-Director, Agricultural Development Economics (ESA)

CIRAD Dr Patrick Caron Director General in charge of Research and Strategy

DFID Ms Paula Chalinder Head of Profession, Livelihoods

ACIAR Dr Kuhu Chatterjee Regional Manager for South Asia

CIRAD Dr Marie de Lattre-Gasquet Senior Foresight Scientist

WEForum Mr Sean deCleene Head of Food System Initiative

EAT Dr Fabrice DeClerck Director of Science

IPES Mr Emile Frison Panel Member

UoL Dr Marcelo Galdos Academic Fellow - Modelling Food Security and Climate

CGIAR Dr Peter Gardiner Senior Manager Program Performance

WUR Mr Joost Guijt Senior Advisor

ECI Dr Saher Hasnain Researcher

IIASA Dr Petr Havlik Senior Research Scholar

USAID Mr. David Hegwood Senior Food Security Advisor

EC Mr. Patrick Herlant Policy Officer

SUAS Prof Ylva Hillbur Pro-vice Chancellor

GFAR Mr Mark Holderness Executive Secretary

ECI Dr John Ingram Food Systems Programme Leader

IIED Ms Xiaoting Hou Jones Researcher

EMBRAPA Mr Pedro Luiz Oliveira de Almeida Machado

Coordinator

Danone Ms Agnes Martin Health and Diet Advocacy Director

SUAS Dr Martin Melin Researcher: NEXTFOOD

CIFOR/FTA

Mr Alexandre Meybeck Senior Technical Advisor

38

WUR Dr Saeed Moghayer Senior Researcher/MAGNET Modeller

INRA Dr Olivier Mora ex-Director of Agricmonde-Terra

IIASA Dr Aline Mosnier Research Fellow

CCAFS Dr Maliha Muzammil South Asia Regional Scenarios Coordinator

AgMIP Dr Carolyn Mutter International Program Manager, AgMIP

UN Dr David Nabarro UN Special Adviser on 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

Independent

Prof Zenda Ofir scientist + international evaluator

RUFORUM

Mr Charles Owuor Manager for Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

YPARD Ms Myriam Perez Director

OXFAM Dr Kimberly Pfeifer Food Systems Specialist

UoC Dr John Roy Porter Professor Emeritus

IDS Mr Evert-Jan Quak Research Coordinator

IDDRI Dr Marie Hélène Schwoob Research Fellow

CGIAR Dr Rachid Serraj Senior Agricultural Research Officer

ICASEPS Prof Achmad Suryana Senior Researcher

XPRIZE Ms Zenia Tata Vice-President: Global Impact Strategy

CC Ms Vanessa Taylor Assistant Director

IDDRI Dr Sebastien Treyer Director

SCAR Dr Ezigio Valceschini Member of SCAR

UU Dr Joost Vervoort Assisant Professor

ACIAR Dr Daniel Walker Chief Scientist

IFPRI Dr Keith Wiebe Senior Research Fellow

OSF Ms Elizabeth Wilson Programme officer

ACIAR Ms Mellissa Wood Director Australian International Food Security Centre

ECI Dr Jim Woodhill Honorary Research Associate

AUB Prof Rami Zurayk Member of HLPE Steering Committee

ECI Dr Monika Zurek Senior Researcher