The future of food and agriculture:
the overarching concern and key messages

Key messages

Agenda 2030, including agrifood-related targets, is tremendously off-track.
If current trends of drivers affecting agrifood systems do not change, the sustainability and resilience of agrifood systems will be seriously under threat and food crises are likely to increase in the future. Trends such as increasing population and urbanization, macroeconomic instability, poverty and inequalities, geopolitical tensions and conflicts, fiercer competition over natural resources and climate change are wreaking havoc in socioeconomic systems and damaging environmental systems. In the words of the Secretary General of the United Nations (UNSG), the world is “tremendously off-track” to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The development paths followed by high-income countries are not replicable in low- and middle-income countries…
Past conditions are no longer available to replicate the development formula adopted by current high-income countries (HICs). Very few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), perhaps none, will have the possibility of achieving hegemonic power and the status of empires that many HICs made use of to benefit their well-being and welfare. Future global development patterns depend on the resolution of key questions: institutions providing solutions for sharing the “global commons”; the distribution political power and wealth; and the resolution of the extensive inequalities present in today’s economies.

…and they are not sustainable
There is growing evidence that currently prevailing agricultural practices, which rely on the intensive use of agrochemical inputs and energy, are endangering the future of agrifood systems. As a result of the persistent overuse of natural resources, huge greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and unprecedented loss of biodiversity, hunger and food insecurity are on the rise and billions of people lack access to healthy diets.

A change of mindset is needed – “more of the same” will lead the world to the point of no return
As it fatally compromises agrifood systems, the short-termism era will inevitably end either abruptly, with inestimable costs for everyone, or with a gradual and costly transition instigated by new mindset that prioritizes long-term objectives. Partial or local quick fixes resulting from uncertain decisions and commitments, piecemeal approaches and patchy reactive strategies are not up to the challenge. Neither can changes in production alone secure the sustainability and resilience of agrifood systems. They all fail to address the root causes of overall unsustainability and lack of resilience.

Changing the course of actions is far from easy, given the difficult trade-offs this entails
Achieving the four aspirational “betters” that FAO has placed at the heart of its strategic framework (better production, better nutrition, better environment and better life) requires balancing major trade-offs, such as: short-term productivity gains against greater sustainability and reduced climate impact; or efficiency, against inclusiveness; or short-term economic growth and well-being against greater long-term resilience and sustainability.

The gradual transition will have to be perceived as fair to be economically and socially viable
Countries and social groups that can reasonably shoulder the costs involved in the necessary transformations should provide support to those already affected by the negative effects of unsustainable development. However, selling to the public the message that well-off people have to lose out economically in the short run in order to reap environmental benefits and resilience for all in the medium and long run, is counterintuitive in this short-termism era. The size and potential of transformative actions are significantly influenced by the current and future preferences of political economy dynamics. Stakeholders need to understand and effectively “outsmart” these dynamics.

Agrifood sectors are key, yet no longer enough on their own, to ensure sustainable development and equitable access to food
Increasing labour and land productivity in agriculture is just a precondition for economic growth. Crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry continue to be important for employment and income generation everywhere. However, these sectors alone no longer provide enough jobs or income-earning opportunities, particularly in view of the increasing economy-wide capital and information intensity of production and distribution processes. Strong institutions, supported by efficient fiscal systems, are needed to support the emergence of other sectors, ensure economy-wide income-earning opportunities, effective social protection, protection of savings for capital accumulation and widespread asset ownership. In addition, interventions to reduce GHG emissions of agrifood systems will not pay off significantly if efforts to boost energy efficiency are not simultaneously undertaken on an economy-wide basis.

Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems can help nourish the world but are at risk of disappearing in the future
In 2021, the Scientific Group advising the UN Food Systems Summit recognized Indigenous Peoples’ food and territorial management systems as game changers for sustainability and resilience. Their territorial management and governance systems enable them to achieve high levels of food self-sufficiency, an efficient use of resources, to adapt to seasonality, domesticate wild species, and enhance biodiversity and in situ genetic resources. A number of lessons can be learned from their food systems about sustainability and resilience that can be useful for agrifood systems and for food security. Yet, Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems are at risk of disappearing in the near future due to lack of dedicated policies and programmes supporting them. Internal and external drivers are jeopardizing their continuity: Extractive industries, deforestation, migration, violence, displacement, climate change and urbanization, among others, exert mounting pressure over the future of these ancestral food systems.

Key priority “triggers” of transformation are available and strategic policy options exist to activate them
Institutions and governance, consumer awareness, income and wealth distribution, and innovative technologies and approaches are key priority triggers that influence important drivers of agrifood systems. Given their potentially highly transformative impacts, activating these triggers in the complex multilateral and global arena can be politically sensitive and requires outsmarting political economy dynamics and handling trade-offs. International organizations need to be fit-for-purpose to support countries and civil society bodies in this endeavour.

The future of agrifood systems may look like one of the four paradigmatic alternative future scenarios produced by this strategic foresight exercise…
More of the same (MOS), that envisages continuing muddling through by reacting to events and crises; adjusted future (AFU), where some moves towards sustainable agrifood systems occur at a slow, uncertain pace; race to the bottom (RAB), that portrays a world in disarray in the worst version of itself; and trading off for sustainability (TOS), where short-term gross domestic product (GDP) growth and immediate final consumption are traded off for inclusiveness, resilience and sustainability of agrifood, socioeconomic and environmental systems.

…but will depend on the strategic and policy orientations directed at achieving an effective transition towards sustainable and resilient agrifood systems
The choices to be made are between the following: more international cooperation in a multilateral context or pursuit of national interest within few siloed spheres of influence confronting each other; accepting or refusing to change the dominant development paradigm that gives priority to short-termism and productivism, and high-energy and resource intensity; strengthening global governance to address common issues and frame large transnational corporations or leaving global commons unregulated and at the mercy of the most powerful; supporting and joining action with civil society movements to promote sustainable agrifood systems at global, national and local levels to regulate the economy, or disregarding or even silencing them. These choices could all trigger or undermine an effective transition towards sustainable and resilient agrifood systems and the concretization of the “four betters”.

Better production starts from better, critical and informed consumption…
Consumers hold the power to trigger transformative processes by shifting demand towards more environmentally and socially responsible, and nutritious products. Dietary patterns with better nutritional and environmental outcomes can trigger environmental impacts on a scale not achievable with supply side technological changes only. The emergence of a critical and informed civil society, and active citizenships able to determine governmental action are effective triggers for transformative processes of agrifood systems.

…but producing more with less will also be unavoidable
It is reasonable to expect billions of additional people on the planet in the next decades. However, agrifood systems are already exceeding planetary boundaries for key natural resources, thus undermining the natural resource base on which they depend. Producers of agricultural commodities and food must improve land and water use, increase efficiency of their energy use, protect biodiversity, and restore soils and forests, thus contributing to reduced GHG emissions. These are just some of the challenges that a variety of strategic options need to take into consideration in any search to attain sustainability.

Technological innovations are part of the solution – provided new technologies and approaches are also accessible to the more vulnerable
With current technologies forming one of the factors of unsustainability of agrifood systems, research and development (R&D) and resulting technologies and approaches have major roles to play in triggering and supporting the transition towards sustainability. The reality is, however, that the bulk of R&D spending is concentrated in only few countries, with a considerable share in the hands of private corporations. This poses a risk of technological dependency and difficult access to innovations for a large part of the world.

Investment in agrifood systems is attracting new investors, but disparities across countries and regions are considerable
Investment plays a central role in driving change in agrifood systems. Investment in agrifood systems has recently grown and has attracted new investors such as pension funds, specialized investment funds, endowment funds and impact investors, in addition to traditional private and public investors. However, in HICs, investment per capita in agriculture is five times what it is in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A reason for this disparity is that small-scale producers in LMICs have to rely mostly on self-financing as their access to formal credit is constrained.

During the transition towards sustainability, food prices are likely to increase…
Resource degradation and climate change affect negatively agricultural supply, contributing to pushing up prices of agricultural commodities. Moreover, if only part of the externalities generated by the production and consumption of agricultural products – GHG emissions, loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural resources, health impacts and social costs – is taken into account, food prices are likely to increase significantly.

…yet environmental sustainability and food security can still go hand in hand if more equitable income and wealth distribution are pursued
As the transition towards sustainable agrifood systems is likely to drive up prices, policies that favour of a more equitable distribution of income and wealth within and across countries need to be pursued, in the quest for food security, better nutrition and the environmental sustainability of agrifood systems. Some options to fulfil this goal include: securing an equitable access to assets, such as land, water, forest and capital, as well as to inputs; enhancing skills and know-how to increase human capital; implementing effective social protection schemes and equitable fiscal systems; reducing illicit financial flows that drain resources from low-income countries (LICs); and, last but no less important, developing sustainable technologies and adapting them to small-scale producers. These, and other measures, will significantly contribute to broadening the earning potential for poorer strata of society, both within and outside agrifood systems.

Immense masses of digital data and unprecedented analytical capabilities could trigger transformation of agrifood systems – this, however, is not free of potential hazards
There are great hopes that digitalization will help improve the operational efficiency of agrifood systems (input use, disease control, supply chains management, automation, etc.), thus reducing their environmental impact. Big data platforms have recently entered into agrifood systems and may have already acquired dominating positions. Novel and disruptive business models may threaten traditional operators, as illustrated by the changes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns also arise, however, as both big data and analytical capabilities are concentrated in the hands of a few players. Unless duly regulated, this may accelerate power concentration and imbalances, generate more inequality, and exclude poor and unskilled workers.

Agrifood systems should no longer be considered from the rural perspective only – urbanization, rural and urban areas should be seen as integrated entities
The rural–urban dichotomy does not appear to be an adequate axis along which analysing recent evolution of agrifood systems. The borders between rural and urban areas are increasingly blurred and these areas are becoming more interdependent. To reduce their vulnerability and improve access to services and employment, households adopt strategies that cross rural–urban boundaries. For territorial transformations to be inclusive, particularly for small-scale farmers, strong institutions will be needed.

The “sustainable ocean economies” approach aims at developing sustainably all aquatic sectors, including fisheries – yet, several constraints hamper its implementation
Fisheries, and particularly aquaculture, have been growing at a fast rate over the last three decades and have become a major source of high-quality animal proteins, polyunsaturated fatty acids and micronutrients. This is especially true for aquaculture that is now the main provider of fish products. The practical application of the “sustainable ocean economies” approach, also referred to as the “Blue economy” approach, requires that the governance of aquatic activities become more inclusive. Potentially diverging interests between fisheries and other “Blue economy” activities (e.g. tourism, maritime transport, water desalinization and bioprospecting) may need to be reconciled, otherwise the adoption of the “Blue economy” concept could benefit only large economic operators, rather than fish worker and fish farmer communities.

Competitive and equitable domestic and international markets for inputs and outputs are a precondition for trade to become a trigger of development
International trade is essential for sustainably expanding food availability in countries where the population is expected to increase significantly. Trade has also a role to play in income generation if commercial agreements are set within a solid institutional context that ensures the respect of all stakeholders, including future generations. However, commodity dependence of LICs has to be broken by investing in economic diversification within and outside agrifood systems. Basing decisions on what to produce and trade only on narrowly-defined, short-term comparative advantages may well lead to distorted decisions. More holistic assessments, that also consider resilience and sustainability, are needed, as recent pandemics and conflicts show. Strong global and national institutions are also needed to coordinate efforts across countries and prevent unfair competition against countries that adopt more stringent environmental, social and fiscal regulations.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of new conflicts both reveal the fragilities of agrifood systems, but lessons learned could trigger positive changes
On the one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic and its successive periods of lockdown have accelerated changes in consumption, particularly in HICs. Previously reluctant consumers have become platform clients, creating a boom of orders, including for food. This has provided incentives for retailers to venture into the digital market, and contributed to shift the retail and catering sectors towards more digital transactions. On the other hand, the pandemic has revealed the fragility of recent achievements in food insecurity and poverty reduction. In addition, recent conflicts have shown that excessive dependence on essential food items from few countries poses a serious threat to global food security. Specialization and ensuing short-term efficiency need to be carefully traded off for longer-term resilience and sustainability.

Global governance for globally shared issues is needed
An overall institutional vacuum is perceived due to the discrepancy between the global level of issues at stake, on the one hand, such as international capital flows, global climate change, international conflicts or local conflicts fed by external dynamics, big data generation, storage, use and control, and, on the other hand, the increasing weakness of most of sovereign countries in governing such issues. With few exceptions, the size of most countries is actually clearly too small to be able to influence, at least to some extent, these global dynamics. Therefore, transformative processes require, as a precondition, much stronger, more transparent and accountable institutions and governance across all domains of agrifood systems and their socioeconomic and environmental contexts.

All countries, starting from wealthier ones, must commit to implementing fundamental structural changes and shoulder their costs
Agrifood transformative processes require that each country decipher how to trigger engines of sustainable growth for broad economic development. Fundamental changes in the way all societies consume and produce are needed. Starting from wealthier societies that consume more, all countries have to renew the assets they use to produce goods and services, develop new solutions, implement innovative technologies and move along sustainable consumption patterns. In addition, in the spirit of solidarity enshrined in Agenda 2030, countries and social groups that can reasonably shoulder the costs involved in the necessary transformations have to provide support to those already affected by the negative impacts of unsustainable development, and help them construct a more equitable and better future for generations to come.