Every day, the food we eat connects us to a vast global web of farmers, traders, food manufacturers, retailers and many other people involved in getting food from farm to fork. Most of us probably don’t pause to think about it while biting into a piece of fruit or a slice of bread, but this global food system is central to some of the biggest challenges facing humanity.
Current challenges facing the global food system
Let’s start with the most obvious one. The global food system is expected to provide safe and nutritious food to a population that will likely grow from 7.5 billion people today, to nearly 10 billion by 2050. Not only will there be more mouths to feed, but as incomes grow in emerging and developing economies, so too will the demand for meat, fish, and dairy.
However, food production is only one aspect of the food system. The agro-food sector also provides a livelihood for millions of people. Globally, most of the people living in extreme poverty are in rural areas where food production is often the most important economic activity. There are an estimated 570 million farms worldwide today, and millions of other people work in food-related jobs.
The global food system also has a large environmental footprint. In fact, agriculture occupies nearly 40% of the earth’s surface, far more than any other human activity. In addition, irrigation of agricultural crops comprises 70% of global water use, and agriculture directly contributes to around 11% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (mostly through cattle). Expanding agricultural land can also lead to deforestation, additional GHG emissions, and a loss of biodiversity.
Setting the table to address the triple challenge
These three challenges – feeding a growing population, providing a livelihood for farmers, and protecting the environment – must be tackled together if we are to make sustainable progress in any of them. But making progress on this “triple challenge” is difficult, as initiatives in one domain can have unintended consequences in another.
Sometimes, the consequences are positive. For instance, raising farm productivity can generate income growth in agriculture, make more food available for consumers at lower prices, and – in some cases – reduce pressure on the environment. But sometimes the consequences are negative and require balancing trade-offs. For example, policies to increase the environmental sustainability of agriculture could impose increased costs on farmers and lead to higher prices for consumers.
In other words, policies that address one part of the triple challenge often end up creating synergies (positive effects) or trade-offs (negative effects) with respect to other objectives—and a single-issue perspective on any objective can lead to unintended impacts on other objectives. Competing objectives and complex interactions, along with multiple stakeholders with a range of concerns, should make us cautious when specific ideas are proposed as “silver bullets” to fix the food system.
So what can policy makers do to address these important challenges, taking into account their interconnectedness? How should they find out if and when there is a conflict between two or more objectives? How should they deal with stakeholders who may resist an initiative they fear could harm their interests? And how should they co-ordinate with policy makers in other agencies or ministries, and with counterparts in other countries?
To begin the process of answering these difficult questions, the OECD organised a Global Forum on Agriculture in May 2019 to exchange ideas about the most important challenges facing the global food system today (the triple challenge), and the obstacles that stand in the way of overcoming them. Importantly, the conversation included views from a range of stakeholders affected by agro-food policy decisions – including farmers, traders, food manufacturers, consumer representatives, agricultural input suppliers, researchers, environmental NGOs, and policy makers. The OECD will build on this discussion to assess the main obstacles to achieving better policies for the global food system, and to identify good practices to help overcome them.
Future policies may require new recipes
Just like a good meal is a balanced meal, good policies will need to strike a balance between the different objectives of the triple challenge facing the global food system today. And just like a good meal depends not only on the chef, but also on the quality of the ingredients – so too will good policies depend not only on the policy maker, but also on the input from many stakeholders. Given the scale and complexity of these challenges, policy makers may need to experiment with new recipes to cook up a set of policy solutions that are to everyone’s taste.
These new recipes will also need to take into account the well-being of the men, women and children in the future of agriculture and the workplaces of agriculture workplaces.
Gender inequalities are built into the systems and structures of our workplaces:
- Formally through policies and decision-making practices (e.g. denying promotion to part-time staff, as women are much more likely to work part-time than men), and
- Informally through norms and customs (e.g. ‘cultural fit’, ‘merit’, who gets included in or excluded in social and professional networks, language use, stereotypes, sexist and harassing behaviour).
Gender inequalities are also carried out by men and women at work:
- While only a minority of men engage in physical and sexual violence against women, many men, often without even realising it, practice other everyday forms of sexism.
Men benefit from gender inequality
Even if not intended or wanted, men receive benefits and advantages because of gender inequality. Research shows that:
- Male job applicants and staff are evaluated more positively than women,
- Men’s views are given more weight, and
- Male leaders gain advantage of stereotypical associations between masculinity and leadership – ‘Think Manager, Think Man’.
Men are part of the problem and the solution
We will not make much progress towards gender equality without men’s support.
- Not because women are weak and can’t do it on their own.
- Not because men have been left out and are now the victims.
- Because men are part of the problem.
How men think, behave, and how they relate to women and to other men, all play an important part in keeping gender inequalities alive. Men’s attitudes and behaviours may support the sexist status quo. Men have a vital role to play in building a world of gender equality – and many already are doing so. And there is much more that men can do.
In partnership with Dr Graeme Russell and Dr Michael Flood, two of Australia’s leading researchers in diversity and inclusion, DCA has developed, Men Make a Difference: Engaging Men on Gender Equality. The report examines the evidence for what works and what doesn’t, and recommends more effective ways to engage men to achieve gender equality at work.
The most effective ways to engage men on gender equality at work:
- Get the foundation right – ensure gender equality initiatives involve women and men as active and equal partners.
- Get the framing right – treat gender equality as a business issue, not a women’s issue.
- Go wide – make visible and target all key gender equality areas (i.e. paid work, power and decision making, financial security, personal safety, interpersonal work relationships, caring, and community involvement).
- Get the messaging right – to appeal to men as well as women.
- Engage a diversity of men – including men in different organisational roles and levels, and with a variety of demographic backgrounds (e.g. ages, cultural backgrounds, sexual orientations).
- Educate about how to lead change effectively – by resourcing initiatives, being visible and persistent, and ‘walking the talk’.
- Make the connection between work and home – by implementing initiatives that encourage gender equality in caregiving.
- Make the connection between work and communities – by framing gender inequality as a societal/community problem.
- Build individuals’ gender confidence and capability – by providing opportunities for both men and women to change their mindsets, assumptions, and behaviours.
- Encourage men and women to challenge and change gender-biased organisational policies and practices.
Now, to include children in the equation of well-being in the agriculture sector.
Children’s social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) is a key component of mental health and wellbeing. It is a complex construct that is sometimes referred to as social and emotional competence, development, learning or literacy.
The emphasis is on behavioural and emotional strengths and ability to adapt and deal with daily challenges (resilience and coping skills) and respond positively to adversity while leading a fulfilling life (AIHW 2012).
An ecological conceptualisation of SEWB recognises that while children’s individual internal characteristics contribute to their social and emotional wellbeing, relationships and interactions with their family, school and community environments have a significant influence (AIHW 2012). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions found that social and emotional skills can be taught at school, and have a positive impact on attitudes, behaviours and academic outcomes (Durlak et al. 2011).
Socially and emotionally competent children:
- are confident
- have good relationships
- communicate well
- do better at school
- take on and persist with challenging tasks
- develop the necessary relationships to succeed in life.
Strong social and emotional competence may also provide resilience against stressors (AIHW 2012).
Cultural background is an important consideration in measurement due to differences in social norms and values between cultural groups (Hamilton & Redmond 2010). For Indigenous children, for example, key elements of SEWB include:
- family and community wellbeing
- connection to ancestry, culture, spirituality and country (Marmor & Harley 2018).
Measuring social and emotional wellbeing
Theories of SEWB development are diverse, and there is little agreement on how best to measure it (Bernard and Stephanou 2017). Positive constructs that measure how well children are thriving in terms of SEWB include the construct of mental health competence, which measures healthy psychosocial functioning (Goldfeld et al. 2014).
How children view their own wellbeing (subjective or self-reported wellbeing), is also important for measuring SEWB. Survey instruments giving children a voice include the South Australian Wellbeing and Engagement collection which measures SEWB for:
- happiness
- optimism
- satisfaction with life
- perseverance
- emotion regulation
- sadness
- worries (SA Department for Education 2018).
Living in the lowest socioeconomic areas was strongly associated with a score ‘of concern’ and double the rate of that for children living in the highest socioeconomic areas (16% and 7.2%, respectively) (Figure 2).
Reliable data are not available on Indigenous children in the Second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. The 2000–2002 Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey found that among children aged 4–17, Indigenous children were 1.6 times as likely than non-Indigenous children to be at risk of social and emotional difficulties based on the SDQ (24% and 15%, respectively) (De Maio et al. 2005).
A comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children aged 6–7 (based on the Longitudinal Survey of Indigenous Children (LSIC), and the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children (LSAC), respectively) found that Indigenous children tended to have greater levels of social and emotional difficulties using the SDQ (DSS 2015). However, using the SDQ showed that on average Indigenous children in LSIC had higher prosocial scores (a strengths-based measure which includes being considerate, sharing and being helpful and kind) than non-Indigenous children (DSS 2015).
The challenges to improve the well-being of all are on going, though if you implement small improvements in your business each year, over time much will be achieved and appreciated by city dwellers willing to purchase your produce.