The transition to nature-positive food systems is slowed or made impossible by numerous agronomic, economic and social challenges, which are compounded by deficits in knowledge systems.
4.5. Call for Actions to Successfully Cope with Trade-Offs and Scaling Up Nature-Positive Food Systems
There are several structural lock-ins that keep the current unsustainable food production system in place. These create a set of feedback loops that reinforce this system and include investments and policies that create path dependency, such as the purchasing of expensive equipment or subsidies for chemical pesticides, export orientation, the expectation of cheap food, compartmentalized and sectoral short-term thinking, certain discourses about feeding the world and a sole focus on production volumes and measures of success (looking at single crops) (IPES-Food 2016). Other typical lock-ins that reinforce the current system are the concentration of power in the food chain and institutional, agricultural research and technological lock-ins (WWF 2016). Therefore, a systematic change towards nature-positive food systems requires a fundamental reorientation of many societal actors and a realignment of the cooperation among them. The inclusion of local actors, particularly of the most vulnerable voices, in decision-making will lead to more effective solutions. The nine actions can provide guidance to ensure an integrated, systemic approach.
Action 1: Increase Policy Coherence and Strengthen Adequate Governance
Nature-positive food systems require a different type of government support that goes beyond incentives such as income-oriented subsidies or those for particular inputs or unspecific marketing actions. Further research is therefore needed to better understand which government policies can support nature-positive food systems and the multi-functionality of agriculture more generally. Importantly, more information is needed on the public and private costs of sectoral approaches that result in contradictory and conflicting policies.
The decisive level in fostering transition is the landscape. This is the level where actors and innovations come together and where food producers’ strategies interact with other users of the landscape, with governance policies and with natural systems. Sustainability at the landscape level is essential for water and soil management. The health of upland watersheds, for example, can be critical to water regulation and recharge, and the stabilization of soils. For this reason, the landscape approach has been promoted by agencies such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union as the scale at which it is most meaningful to align policies and incentives towards nature-positive outcomes. Landscape-level regulations and incentives, as well as infrastructure planning and other intervention strategies, should be designed and decided at this level, preferably through inclusive, participatory processes and institutions. An important element in these interventions is therefore not just the creation and sharing of knowledge, technologies and practices that better link to the objectives of improving and maintaining non-commodity ecosystems services, but, importantly, the governance systems that are driving certain technologies, processes or behaviors.
Landscape-level governance is critical. Governance frameworks – including, for example, regulations, incentives and extension programs – influence farmers everywhere and play a crucial role in the adoption of good farming practices. In some countries, these governance systems are quite sophisticated cascading systems that are clearly targeted at promoting sustainability. Laws and regulations on environmental, human and animal health, animal welfare or land management are effectively implemented so that farmers who are found to be in violation can be fined or excluded from related government support and services. Farmers receiving income support have to respect additional environmental standards, such as maintaining soil quality or protecting groundwater, landscape and biodiversity (cross-compliance). A powerful incentive for the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and, especially, nature-positive production are payments for ecosystem services (Piñeiro et al. 2020).
However, in other countries, governance institutions may not administratively align with landscape levels or may not be adequately empowered or well-resourced to implement similar efforts. In these cases, in parallel to broader governance strengthening, nature-positive practices can be more immediately advanced through mechanisms that include support for relevant applied research and extension activities, land conservation and restoration efforts, education and training, facilitation of access to credit and insurance, and legal and administrative reforms to secure land tenure and enhance farmers’ willingness to invest in sustainability.
Unfortunately, the transition towards nature-positive farming can be decelerated by incentives for food producers to invest in large machines, skills, and retail relationships that are economically attractive only if applied in unsustainable farming systems (HLPE 2019, IPES-Food 2016). Similarly, large subsidies on agricultural water promote unsustainable water usage, while subsidies on pesticides and fertilizers can encourage overuse, resulting in degraded water quality. These lock-ins make it difficult for producers to shift their strategy towards more nature-positive food systems.
Additional to the efforts and advances of several agencies connected with UN and CGIARs, it is essential to coordinate and integrate several relevant initiatives that are ongoing globally, such as Water, Land and Ecosystems (https://wle.cgiar.org), EarthBioGenome (https://www.earthbiogenome.org), Future Food Systems, Australia (https://www.futurefoodsystems.com.au), Next Generation Food Systems (https://
www.ucdavis.edu/news), DivSeek International Network (https://divseekintl.org), CropBooster-P (https://www.cropbooster-p.eu), EMPHASIS –ESFRI- (https://emphasis.plant-phenotyping.eu), and Living Soils of the Americas initiative (https://iica.int), among others.
Action 2: Improve Sustainable Soil Management
Soil degradation, being exacerbated by climate change, along with land misuse and soil mismanagement, is worsening the malnutrition that is already affecting more than 2 billion people globally (Lal 2009). Restoration and sustainable management of soil are also critical to enhancing and maintaining ecosystem services, identifying and implementing nature-positive agriculture, producing more food from less land, and advancing the UN SDGs (e.g., SDG#2, Zero Hunger, SDG #13, Climate Action, SDG #15, Life on Land) (Lal 2018). Developing resilient food production systems for local consumers is especially important during the Covid-19 pandemic, promoting food production through urban agriculture and home gardening (Lal 2020). Achieving the targets of land degradation neutrality, adopted by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, will also improve the nutritional quality of the food. Translating into action the concept of “the health of soil, plants, animals, people and environment is one and indivisible” through restoration of degraded soils and adoption of nutrition-sensitive agriculture will also improve human health and well-being (Lal 2020). Soil health and its capacity to generate ecosystem services must be enhanced through sequestration of soil organic matter content by adopting a system-based conservation agriculture, enriching the soil by planting nitrogen-fixating plants or adding N fixating microorganisms, mycorrhizae, growing cover and inter-crops, diversifying crop sequences, and integrating crops with trees and livestock in agro-silvopastoral systems (Jensen et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2012). Adoption of nature-positive practices that enhance soil organic matter content can reduce dependence on chemicals, irrigation, tillage and other energy-intensive inputs, and would reduce losses of nutrients and water, enhance eco-efficiency and sustain productivity. Sequestration of soil organic carbon has been recommended by several international initiatives, such as 4p1000, adopted by COP21 in Paris in 2015, Adapting African Agriculture by COP22 in Marrakech in 2016 (Lal 2019), Platform on Climate Action in Agriculture by COP25 in Madrid/Santiago and the international initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Nature-positive production implies adaptation to climate change and the protection and enhancement of soil health and food security. This can be achieved through bioeconomy strategies with the approach of integrated cycles in whole value chains to increase efficiencies by recycling resources through diverse products and coproducts in animal, plant, and microbial systems. The goal is to promote resource efficiency while enhancing productivity, and increase resilience in crop systems able to cope with biotic and abiotic stresses.
Action 3: Boost Knowledge and Innovation for Nature-Positive Food Systems
The dramatic increase in food demand projected for 2050 requires a broad-based environmental, social and technological innovation strategy; one that is supported by farmers, scientists, food value chain actors and citizens. Innovations must not be hindered if they serve the goals of nature-positive food systems. Ecological innovations or optimizations are driven by biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Most fundamentally, soil fertility is vital to plant growth factors, such as mineralization of nutrient elements, water supply, aeration and loosening of the root zone and rooting depth. Social innovations include those in the socio-economic space, such as new ideas for the governance of landscape-level networks, innovation of institutions, novel approaches to building farmers organizations, creative use of finance to support these transitions, and co-operations in marketing and food distribution such as community-supported agriculture (CSA), as well as new modes of learning and capacity-building. Technological innovations encompass digitalization, the smart use of data for prediction and prevention, various breeding techniques, production of bio-inputs or the separation, processing and recycling of organic waste.
Innovations across all of these categories can be mutually reinforcing, particularly when they are embedded in the systems approach of nature-positive food systems. Therefore, strict criteria for the choice of technological innovation must be applied consistently with this paradigm. Centrally, these include requirements for the protection of biodiversity, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvement of biological and physical soil quality, human well-being, equitable access regardless of farm size and gender, and compatibility with traditional knowledge. In light of this, technological innovations must always be sensitively integrated with local cultural and affiliated knowledge contexts, under the aegis of an overarching systems approach.
Already, global agriculture is undergoing major transformations through this kind of technology convergence, such as new digital technologies and the use of artificial intelligence to optimize agricultural production processes. Drones and advanced analysis of image data can identify pests and diseases in real time and provide a powerful toolbox for all farmers, regardless of farm size. With improved access to biotic (pests and diseases) or physical (meteorological, SAT early warning systems) information and remote sensing, producers can use their mobile phones to strengthen their practices, making the best use of resources and inputs. Digitalization has been developed on and for broad-acre farms. The technology can work flexibly and on a small scale. It can intervene with pinpoint accuracy, and the devices become smaller, lighter and work in coordinated networks. The software makes it possible to carry out operations in small spatial and temporal structures in an efficient, labor-saving and energy-saving way. Depending on how the algorithms are programmed, networking and diversity emerge. Further developments also promise to make such technologies affordable for small and medium-sized farmers.
Parallel to digital technologies, novel bio-inputs provide a valuable supplement to NbS (Syed Ab Rahman et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2018; Kavino and Manoranjitham 2017). It is crucial to promote and strengthen studies on plant microbiome, which comprises all micro- and macro-organisms living in, on, or around the plant, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, and protists for food security (d’Hondt et al. 2021). We recommend that greater emphasis be given to the development of green technologies that deploy indigenous perennial species, tapping into the symbiotic relationships that naturally exist between microbes and plant species (Hohmann et al. 2020). In the African context, for example, it has already been established that the combined use of many different beneficial microorganisms (producing multi-strain or multi-bacterial inoculants) can greatly boost nature-positive production (Adedeji et al. 2020).
A similar role can be played by bio-stimulants from land and marine/ocean resources (e.g., Kelpak from seaweeds, molecules such as lumichrome, riboflavin, and nodulation factors from soil rhizobia and other mutualistic microbes), which replace chemical fertilizers in promoting crop plant growth and increasing yields. Plant protectants, such as botanicals (plant extracts), are currently under-exploited, but we can look to future scientific and technological developments to increase the portfolio of bioproducts developed from the local biodiversity, in keeping with a circular economy approach.
Maintaining and increasing biodiversity in agricultural settings is key to fostering and expanding nature-positive food systems, and can yield additional benefits for consumers. For example, local cultivars that are often more nutritious than common staples and better adapted to local climate and soil conditions (Leclère et al. 2020). Subjecting these to conventional and molecular breeding programs, including gene editing, capitalizes on their inherent advantages, improving productivity and/or tolerance to adverse biotic or abiotic conditions. In the context of climate change, these methods may be critical for maintaining beneficial agrobiodiversity in the face of new environmental pressures. This underlines the need for advanced knowledge in plant genetic diversity, microbial diversity and interactions, taking into account local climate variability, soils, nutrients, water and contextual environmental impacts.
To conclude, the key to successful innovation in support of nature-positive food systems lies in developing these technologies with the active participation of farmers, consumers, and citizens. This ensures that measures adopted locally are the most suited to their specific conditions and cultures. In the future, the target system, which we have defined as nature-positive, will guide the development of technologies and their use, and not vice versa. At the same time, interdisciplinary approaches are required to make the best use of advances in molecular, sensor, and modeling sciences, which can be used to understand and predict production patterns. The use of multiple phytobiomes will be needed along with integration of molecular, ecological, and evolutionary information to obtain significant models. The outcome of this transformation in research practices should be made accessible to food producers on the ground, building on knowledge and resources that are already locally available. In this way, international and collaborative research and local, contextual knowledge systems are harnessed together in support of the overarching aim to save costs and reduce environmental impact: producing more food and fewer negative externalities (WRI 2018).
Action 4: Adapt and Intensify the Knowledge-Sharing of Farmers, Farm Advisors and Farm Teachers
In regard to immediate actions, understanding of the complexity of nature-positive production can be considerably improved. The scientific knowledge is tremendous, but its integration with the knowledge of farmers, consumers and citizen remains vastly unsatisfactory. The promise of traditional knowledge practiced by indigenous peoples and local communities is still underestimated compared to modern scientific knowledge. This in part reflects the fact that the former remains critically under-documented. In order to stimulate interactions between traditional knowledge and science-driven innovation, greater cooperative work in the context of local farms, including the joint design of experiments, is an effective approach. To interest farmers in long-term solutions, the time lag between action and results, and the risk related to it, could be compensated with financial support during the first few years of transition. For farmers, co-learning activities that prominently include both them and the consumers they serve are important. Scientists and farm advisors should learn to use the power of peer-to-peer learning and collaborative action among and with farmers. These are attractive, fruitful, and satisfying alternatives to providing top-down advice. Here, a complete overhaul of agricultural extension services in terms of capacity issues, incentives and accountability to farmers will accelerate transition. Additionally, innovative approaches, like using vouchers for advisory services, should be promoted. These can be given directly to farmer group associations to source extension services from private providers. A combination of public funding and private delivery, based on the farmers’ satisfaction with services provided and the promotion of nature-positive food systems, can be combined with entrepreneurial proficiency. Likewise, ICT use for information and advisory services, in partnership with private providers, should be scaled up.
In light of these proposals, a real revival of agricultural education at universities and farming schools is needed. The complex interdisciplinary concept of nature-positive food systems has to become gradable content in teaching, adaptive experimentation, and locally relevant information exchange. So reformed, the mutual permeability of educational institutions would promote understanding for the transformation of agriculture and its actors. Most of all, public investment in research on nature-positive production should be considerably increased. As nature-positive production requires making complex decisions and coping with uncertainties and trade-offs, as well as accepting higher risks of failure, inter- and transdisciplinary research is a prerequisite.
Action 5: Strengthen Information for Citizens on Sustainable Nutrition and Food Diets
The development and scaling-up of nature-positive production is dependent on the transition to sustainable consumption and more plant-based diets. In many countries, market forces determine access to healthy, sustainable and nutritious food (Action Track 1). One aspect of sustainable nutrition means a higher degree of sufficiency or consumer moderation, characterized by a reduction in food wastage. Food wastage varies considerably across different contexts and is influenced by socio-economic and cultural factors. In addition, a significant part of the unavoidable food losses should be reused via a circular economy of feed and food. Furthermore, competition for the scarce resources of arable land and water among food, feed and energy production must be reduced. Global food mass flow models show that, by using arable land primarily for direct human nutrition while maintaining grassland-based dairy and meat production with ruminants, the goals of preserving biodiversity and environmental integrity and securing human energy and protein supply by 2050 could be achieved simultaneously (Schader et al. 2015, Müller et al. 2017). Such changes in human nutrition and eating habits influence and change land use, ultimately reversing the loss of biodiversity (Leclerc et al. 2020), decreasing GHG emissions (Bajželj et al. 2014; Tilmann and Clark 2014) and improving the ecological footprint (Westhoek et al. 2014).
How can arable land be primarily used for human nutrition? Energy production on arable land can be reduced by ending state subsidies for the cultivation of these crops and for the production of biogas. Here, more energy-efficient and economically-viable alternatives to fossil fuel already exist in the form of solar and wind energy (Blankenship et al. 2011). The collective change of individual consumption and eating patterns presents a more difficult challenge. In the first place, it requires better information, dissemination and integration of sustainable nutrition into the curriculum of schools. Therefore, it will be a multi-generational effort. Further activities can include the development of personalized shopping guidance and all kinds of nudging campaigns. Furthermore, levies and taxes on the transport of concentrated feeds or on the consumption of meat could lead to behavioral changes and make plant proteins more attractive. Meat substitutes based on plant components or on animal cells grown in the laboratory are already technically possible, but currently remain prohibitively expensive (Furuhashi et al. 2021). However, less drastic solutions are still open for exploration and adoption. For example, replacing plant protein in animal feed with insects grown on organic waste materials can also be much more climate-friendly than conventional methods (van Huis et al. 2013). More ambitiously, raw materials for processed foods that are still underused, such as algae, would be almost inexhaustible and ecologically less burdensome for human nutrition.
Action 6: Empower Rural Areas by Cross-Farm Co-Operations and through High Local Value Creation
Any activities that strengthen rural societies, including through local and regional markets, participatory guarantee systems (PGSs), certification systems for remote markets such as voluntary sustainability standards (VSS), or organic farming can considerably improve farm incomes and livelihoods. There are many successful examples of how this kind of social innovation helps boost nature-positive production. To strengthen territorial development, the value addition to products must take place at the local and regional levels, and so related regional networks must be strengthened.
Nature-positive farming systems usually give rise to a larger number of farm activities and more products that need to be marketed. This is especially true for agroforestry systems, for example, where several layers of food crops and energy plants are grown (Ajayi et al. 2009). Currently, there is a lack of adequate market and processing facilities for smaller volumes, which sometimes also require high levels of knowledge and experimentation. Greater emphasis should therefore be placed on supporting local processing facilities, as well as investment in local training in technologically simpler food processing, quality assurance, and, ultimately, improvement in storage and transport routes.
Nature-positive production systems have a high initial demand for labor and can be more labor-intensive in general, especially for women. This can be a serious constraint when manual labor entails onerous and low-skill work that cannot easily be substituted by mechanized labor. However, at the same time, it offers opportunities for employment, and for the revitalization of rural areas, particularly when labor conditions are decent and financial incentives are re-shaped (Schuh et al. 2019). Cooperative models of productive relations must therefore be supported so as to mitigate increases in workload.
Action 7: Improve Access to Land, Water and Biodiversity Especially for Women
Inadequate and insecure access to and tenure rights for various elements of natural ecosystems (unfortunately, a reality in the global North, as well as the South) increase vulnerability and undermine nature-positive production. Insecure access provides little incentive for food producers to invest in long-term nature-positive production. Land fragmentation, soil degradation, climate change, and large scale water and land acquisition all block the possibilities for nature-positive production, thus increasing the likelihood of environmental degradation.
Women are actively involved in food systems in several fundamental functions, growing and managing crops, livestock, agribusinesses and food retailing, and preparing food for their families. Women and women’s groups have been shown to be a critical partner in water and soil sustainable management (https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/women-are-secret-weapon-better-water-management). However, very often, they face restrictions that prevent them from participating on equitable and fair terms. The role of women in the transition towards sustainable food systems centrally includes increasing efficiency, changing diets, and improving integrated value chains. Inclusion means not only ensuring their participation and access to benefits, but, more importantly, guaranteeing their empowerment to make strategic life choices (Malapit et al. 2020). Thus, supporting sustainable and efficient food systems requires technologies, practices and policies that ensure women’s participation and enhance their resilience.
1 