Summary of the OECD Global Forum on Agriculture 2021

Summary Record of the OECD Global Forum on Agriculture 8 – 9 June 2021 (Virtual conference) The OECD Global Forum on Agriculture (GFA) around the theme of “Policies for a more resilient agrofood sector” took place on 8 – 9 June 2021 virtually on zoom. There were 425 people registered and more than 200 people attended the first day with slightly less attending the second day. A copy of the agenda, biographies of speakers and presentations given during the event can be found on the GFA website: https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/events/oecd-global-forum-on-agriculture/ Marion Jansen, Director of the Trade and Agriculture Directorate opened the meeting by stating that the GFA is a platform for opening up OECD discussions on agriculture beyond the membership of the Committee for Agriculture membership and fostering exchange with external public and private sector actors.

OECD Deputy Secretary General Masamichi Kono welcomed delegates and emphasised the scale of the challenges facing the agro-food sector to build resilience to shocks, such as resource shortages, demand shocks like Covid-19 and natural hazard-induced disasters the severity and frequency of which are increasing with climate change. He reminded participants of the OECD 2016 Agriculture Ministers Communiqué which calls for strengthening of resilience of the agriculture and food sector as a central priority. At this year's GFA meeting several years of work by TAD on risk management and resilience would be discussed, which could act as steppingstone for countries to implement OECD policy recommendations contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals and to inform their positions at the UN COP-26 Conference; the COP-15 meeting on Biological Diversity; and the UN Food Systems Summit.

Opening session: How can policies drive improvements in agricultural resilience?

The opening session moderated by Casper Holl, Head of Unit, European, International and Agroeconomic Department, Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The Netherlands started with a presentation by Jonathan Brooks, Head of the Agriculture and Resource Policies Division, Trade and Agriculture Directorate who presented OECD work on policies for a resilient agricultural sector using a holistic approach to risk management.

Ciaran Devlin, Deputy Director, Evidence & Analysis, Department of Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom shared about how the UK is integrating resilience approaches into its new agricultural policy framework. The UK is moving away from direct support towards paying farmers to deliver environmental public goods over the next seven years with a gradual reduction and then cessation of direct, untargeted area-based payments to farmers. This will see EUR 2.8 billion being re-directed (at least until 2024) into agri-environment schemes that will pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon, improve biodiversity and water and air quality, and to provide other environmental goods. A range of schemes are being put in place to support farmers' resilience including: Farming Investment Fund; Lump sum exit scheme; Future Farming Resilience Fund (schemes targeting farmer wellbeing) and Accelerating Adoption (funding for R&D). To support farmers adjustment to the first cut of the direct payments in 2021 there have been pilot programmes run under the Future Farming Resilience Fund focused on wellbeing and business support via webinars or one-to-one extension

1

services. Over 1 000 farms are participating in the trials, and in 2022 this will be scaled up to include 9 000 farms of the total 85 000 farms in the UK. Miranda Meuwissen, Coordinator of the Sustainable Resilient EU Farming Systems (SURE-Farm Consortium) shared her perspective about what coherent policies for agricultural resilience should look like. She emphasised that resilience is a complex and multi-dimensional topic. In particular, the SURE-Farm project has come to conceptualises resilience in terms of the following questions: resilience of what?, to what?, for what purposes?, what are resilience capacities? and what enhances resilience? Using a broad definition of resilience encompassing economic, environment, social and institutions, SURE highlighted that resilience capacities should not be looked at only in terms of robustness, but rather of adaptability and transformability. Accordingly, there is a need to invest in resilience attributes such as diversity, openness, feedback, and system responses. Having undertaken this assessment SURE-Farm suggests to think about policies, by re-conceptualising problems and actions. For instance, there is not a problem attracting young farmers to the sector, but it is the sector that needs to be more open to different farm ownership structures. In another example, there is no lack of labour in the sector, but there needs to be more investment in the liveability of rural areas.

Furthermore in a sector like agriculture where margins are low, there is a need to foster greater alignment in food supply chains, and direct payments need to be more responsive to local initiatives.

Dhanush Dinesh, Head of Partnerships and Outreach, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) shared his insights on what OECD countries can learn about adaptation from the Climate Smart Agriculture approach in Asia and the role of policies in strengthening agricultural resilience. He highlighted examples of the work by CGIAR/CCAFS in South East Asia in strengthening policy processes using climate scenarios. In these examples, Dhanush emphasized the importance of working across government departments and with stakeholders so that policies are coherent. As an example, he highlighted how the buy-in of the Ministry of Finance may be critical when developing index-based insurance for flood protection, livestock and crops.

Corina Jordan, General Manager for the North Island Extension Programme, Beef + Lamb New Zealand shared her perspective on how Beef + Lamb NZ (an industry organisation) is driving on-farm experimentation and adaptions to climate change and other environmental pressures. In New Zealand, environmental bottom lines are defined in the Resource Management Act legislation.

Farmers are responsible for meeting the national targets for fresh water, biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers in New Zealand are not subsidised and must operate within regulatory requirements but also within a social licence to meet values held by New Zealand citizens and overseas consumers. Increasingly environmental, biodiversity and climate change considerations are part of consumer choices. Beef + Lamb NZ has its industry- owned assurance programme called Taste Pure Nature which it uses to communicate the attributes of red meat products in terms of how they deliver consumer values. Some farming practices have led to negative environmental outcomes via intensification and so farmer community groups are working with environmental NGOs to co-design farm plan goals for soil health, fresh water, climate and biodiversity outcomes as part of economic, environmental and social resilience. These farm plans are based on a risk assessment of the farm’s current impact on the environment and so the framework does not embed current practices but considers all other land uses to avoid, remedy and mitigate negative impacts.

After these interventions, the floor was opened for discussion. In response to a question about public money for public goods Ciaran Devlin reiterated the importance of the agricultural sector on the environment in the UK as it accounts for 70% of land use and unlike the energy and transport sectors, which have been reducing their GHG emissions, emissions from agriculture have remained constant.

In the long term, the UK government may introduce regulations but currently the emphasis is on 2

redirecting support towards positive environmental outcomes and co-designing these programmes with farmers. In response to a question about what can OECD countries learn about encouraging climate resilience Dhanush Dinesh stated the importance of the science policy interface and the role that climate scenarios play in helping to focus government policy. Policymakers need to engage with scientific researchers to ensure research is relevant and researchers need to be incentivised to deliver policy outcomes. Good leadership is critical so that researchers are included in policy making processes. A properly incentivised science policy interface can make a huge difference on the implementation of scientific evidence and data in policy making. Funding research is an important lever of change being highlighted in the United Nations Food System Summit and COP26 processes.

In response to a question about what can governments do to raise farmer awareness about the changing risk landscape Corina Jordan stated that farmers in New Zealand are worried about how they are perceived by the public and about meeting consumer expectations in order to maintain their social licence to operate. Cultural sensitivity to the Maori values is also important to farmers.

Participants stated that transforming agricultural policy is challenging but governments need to take action, set regional agri-environmental goals, develop regionally based initiatives and targets for small farm systems and co-design policies with farmers is essential.

Jonathan Brooks concluded the session by emphasising that governments are not spending enough of their budgets on policies which build resilience including payments for eco-system services, as the new Producer Support Estimate numbers from the 2021 Agricultural Monitoring and Evaluation Report confirm.

In between sessions 1 and 2, an OECD video on resilience to promote the key messages was shown. It can be seen at this link https://twitter.com/OECDagriculture/status/1402245471956049921

Session 2: Launch of the OECD/FAO report Building Agricultural Resilience to Natural Hazard-induced Disasters: Insights from Country Case Studies Launching the new report, financed by the Italian government, was the focus of this session moderated by Graziella Romito, Director of International Relations, Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies, Italy.

Emily Gray, Agricultural Policy Analyst OECD and Tamara van 't Wout, Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Specialist, FAO presented findings from the report to begin the session.

During the last few decades, natural hazard-induced disasters, including geophysical, hydrometeorological as well as biological disasters, such as the outbreak of animal and plant pests and diseases, have steadily increased worldwide. When comparing the last 20 years with the previous two decades, the number of weather-related disasters in particular, has significantly increased. Agriculture – due to the climate sensitivity nature of the sector – is significantly affected by natural hazard-induced disasters. These trends mean that “business-as-usual” disaster risk management (DRM) cannot continue if agriculture is to contribute to achieving the triple challenge within the context of sustainable development. DRM needs to do more than help farmers and other stakeholders to cope with the impacts of disasters. Instead, it needs shift to a resilience approach that focuses on preventing and mitigating the adverse impacts of disasters before they happen; being better prepared to respond and recover from disasters, and support adaptation and transformation in response to future risks.

The speakers highlighted how the case study countries are already building agricultural resilience. This includes: providing farmers with science-based and targeted information and decision-support tools on climate and extreme weather events; implementing physically effective and cost-efficient nature3

based solutions to prevent and mitigate natural hazard risks and impacts; collaborating and building relationships to better prepare for and respond to NHID via formal networks; and prioritising contingency planning and simulation exercises to enhance disaster preparedness. The speakers also pointed to what countries could do better, including: getting the policy incentives right for on-farm resilience efforts; targeting policy investment towards developing a resilience toolkit for farmers; and engaging with trusted stakeholders to motivate farm-level change.

Representatives from the seven country case studies made interventions on the best practices from their country The focus of the case studies for the countries was as follows: Chile: climate-related risks, Italy: drought, Japan: typhoons and heavy rains, Namibia: animal pests and diseases, New Zealand: floods, Turkey: drought, the United States: extreme floods associated with Hurricane Florence in 2018 and the 2019 Midwestern Floods. As well as collating these countries’ experiences the report provides concrete examples of how moving from an approach that emphasises coping with the impacts of disasters to an approach that aims to build resilience to disasters before they happen can make agriculture less vulnerable to natural hazard-induced disasters.

Raffaella Zucaro, Senior Researcher, Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economy Analysis (CREA), Italy shared on building agricultural resilience to drought using the SIGRIAN and DANIA databases which can be used to evaluate investments to manage drought risks. The provision of information on water withdrawn and used for agriculture is a prerequisite to determine eligibility for investment funding.

Jan Lewandrowski, Senior Economist, USDA Office of Energy and Environmental Policy (OEEP), United States highlighted how the USDA’s Regional Climate Hubs help farmers to adapt to a changing climate and extreme weather events like floods. These ten Regional Climate Hubs undertake research, develop tools and undertake stakeholder education including with farmers where they tackle barriers to climate adaption via innovative approaches. They provide the regional assessment of climate related risks and improve access to user friendly data.

Oscar Bustamante, Emergency Section and Agricultural Risk Management, Institutional Management Department of the Ministry of Agriculture of Chile discussed the agro-climatic working groups established by the Ministry to build the capacities of small farmers to understand and cope with climate change at the local level. The participatory agro-climatic working groups help connect groups of small farmers with experts who help them to understand climate change trends, and the concept of risk from its relation between exposure and vulnerability based on a local approach, including how to use available agro-climatic information.

Ms Alev Adıgüzel, Environmental Engineer, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Turkey presented about how Turkey’s sectoral water allocation plans (SWAPs) help to improve water management, particularly in drought years. In Turkey 74% of all water is used in agriculture so allocating sufficient water to the sector is an important tool for resilience. The SWAPs play a critical role in helping agriculture to adapt to less water in possible drought conditions that may arise due to climate change, such as by changing crop patterns and better planning irrigation.

Dr Josephat Peter, STATE Veterinarian/Acting Chief Veterinarian North, Namibia discussed how regionalisation in Namibia for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is part of the resilience of Namibia’s livestock sector. The country is divided by a veterinary cordon fence between the North of the country where cattle are FMD vaccinated and the South where cattle are FMD free without vaccination. The regionalisation measures are supported by animal identification and traceability that offers assurances to trading partners.

4

Ritsuko Yoneda, Director for the OECD, International Affairs Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Japan discussed Japan’s longstanding programme for collecting information on agricultural damages and losses caused by natural hazard-induced disasters. This data is an important input into disaster response and recovery efforts, and informs disaster assistance policies for agriculture.

Chris Carson, Agriculture Counsellor, New Zealand Permanent Mission to Brussels emphasised New Zealand’s ex ante approach to all hazards and the clear delineation between farmers, local governments and government responsibilities as well as the understanding that provision of financial support from government is very limited. He highlighted the voluntary Rural Support Trusts which offer local solutions and build community resilience using a holistic approach including fostering rural cohesion and wellbeing. Rural Support Trusts membership often includes retired local farmers who may be trusted and considered more credible when advising local farmers following a natural disaster.

Discussions focussed on the challenges and next steps for countries. Japan stated that disaster preparation training and capacity building was difficult as farmers in Japan are aging. In Turkey, making the allocation of water legally binding and having better crop planning was a challenge. Farmers not adopting best farm management practices is an issue for freshwater quality and GHG emissions reduction outcomes in New Zealand. Engaging with Maori is an important challenge too. In Chile, building the capacity of small farmers through providing agro-climatic information and extension with a climate change focus remains key. In terms of next steps, Namibia is looking to expand the livestock coverage of the regionalisation measures to better manage outbreaks of animal diseases. In Italy next steps include consolidating databases and pricing for water use. Key insights for the US from the case study was highlighting the breadth of US agencies involved and number of services offered to US farmers when natural hazard-induced disasters occur.

FAO and OECD presenters concluded the session by highlighting that the policy architecture was in place to deliver policies for resilience in the agricultural sector and that countries not only have emergency response policies, but they also have proactive responses. Effective policies can stop a hazard from becoming a disaster.

Following the close of the session at 3:30pm delegates were invited to attend two informal breakout groups. Jonathan Brooks moderated further discussions on how policies can drive improvements in agricultural resilience and Emily Gray moderated further discussions on good practices and opportunities for building agricultural resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters. These breakout rooms were well attended and the initiative was welcomed by delegates who enjoyed the chance to exchange with each other in this more relaxed setting.

5

Day 2 – 9 June 2021 To start the second day of the GFA the Italian Minister of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies, Honourable Stefano Patuanelli, made an intervention via a pre-recorded video in which he emphasised the importance of the OECD work on risk management and resilience to Italy in its G7 presidency year.

Session 3: Improving the policy toolkit for agricultural risk management The session was moderated by Jesús Antón, Senior Agricultural Policy Analyst, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, OECD who made the observation that risk management policies tend to focus on some aspects of resilience, in particular in helping farmers to absorb the financial impact of adverse events.

Discussions in the session were focussed on how to design risk management tools in a way that they promote pro-active resilience practices by farmers and other actors in the value chain, including preparedness, recovery, adaptation and transformation.

Joe Glauber, Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute opened the session presenting key findings from the report Design Principles for Agricultural Risk Management Policies.

He explained that government support for agricultural risk management tools has grown considerably over the past few decades and that most OECD countries and several large emerging economies are providing support, but that the level and focus of support varies widely. Programmes include: ex post disaster aid, agricultural insurance, income stabilisation schemes, tax and savings measures. Policies should be designed to complement other different tools and overcompensation should be avoided along with adverse selection and moral hazard behavior. Addressing market failures should be the focus of programmes, which should not crowd out private market tools and reduce farmers’ incentives to invest in risk reducing measures. In the case of ex post disaster assistance programmes, these should be reserved for catastrophic systemic losses and it is important that producers understand the circumstances under which disaster payments apply before they make farm management decisions i.e. planting crops. Mutual funds might be established whereby producers have to contribute some fee prior to planting to be eligible for disaster payments. With regards to agricultural insurance, premium ratings should be transparent and data-driven. Index products could be used instead of indemnity-based insurance and data about participations, premiums, indemnities, liabilities, and of all programme costs should be made publicly available. Data and information concerning the evaluation of risk management programmes is missing. Countries should address the data gaps to understand the effectiveness of the policies to determine if they remain appropriate for the country’s risk management context, or if another tool would be more effective in achieving programme aims.

Katherine Baldwin, Research Agricultural Economist, USDA Economic Research Services explained that expenditures on agricultural risk management tools have more than doubled from USD 15 billion in 2000 to an average of USD 33 billion in 2017-19. The growth is mainly due to higher outlays for crop insurance with a new programme in China introduced in 2007 and the EU lowering its loss threshold and increasing the maximum subsidy and the value of insured production. Spending on ex post aid has remained relatively constant. In general, expenditures are small relative to total support with only four countries spending more than 10% of their total support on risk management tools. For countries where producer support is lower than the OECD average, spending on risk management tools makes up a relatively high share of support.

Francesco Del Bianco, Director General for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canada shared his perspective on agricultural insurance schemes. An OECD review of Canada’s risk management programmes in 6

2011 found that Canada had too many programmes and that these were not signalling risk layers in which farmers should take their own responsibility. Risk management programmes in Canada include AgriRecovery, an ex post disaster assistance, AgriInsurance offering insurance for over 70 individual crops to help manage production losses, with coverage levels from between 50% and 90% covering catastrophic through to marketable risks. AgriInvest is a producer-government savings account with matching contributions of up to CAD 10 000 per year. AgriStability is a whole-farm margin-based program that covers all types of farms and all types of financial risks, mainly production and market risks. Canada is considering implementing a whole-farm revenue or margin insurance program to cover catastrophic loses based on producers’ expected production, benchmark market prices and input costs. Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canada estimates that the premium would be very low and that this approach could incentivize the private sector to develop commodity specific insurance in the more marketable risk layer.

Céline Ollier, Senior Auditor, European Court of Auditors shared about the opportunities to improve the design of exceptional measures in the CAP, including as a way to encourage better on-farm preparedness based on findings from the December 2019 ECA report ‘Farmers’ income stabilisation: comprehensive set of tools, but low uptake of instruments and overcompensation need to be tackled’.

Celine on emphasised that the criteria for triggering and then cessing exceptional losses measures under the CAP are not clearly defined and that direct payments of EUR 41 billion per year have a significant impact on income stabilisation for farmers. There is overlap between different EU instruments and ex post measures for extreme climate risks that crowds out the use of insurance.

Insurance receives a low level of EU support meaning that farmers that take insurance do so without EU support. Data collection to monitor the use of risk management instruments is missing. For instance the Russia import bans triggered exceptional measures and support was paid to EU producers based on loss of the Russian market for 4 years and no account was taken for alternative markets until the third year of the ban. Recommendations from the ECA audit included the following: farmers should be encouraged to better prepare for crisis; the design and monitoring of support for insurance needs to be improved; and the criteria for recourse to exceptional measures needs to be more transparent and clearly stated.

Arup Chatterjee, Principal Financial Sector Specialist, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, Asian Development Bank shared his insights on opportunities to use digital technologies to improve the design of risk management tools. Arup’s views are informed by a recent OECD/Asia Development Bank report on Leveraging Technology and Innovation for Disaster Risk Management and Financing released December 2020 that he co-authored and his work on agricultural insurance more broadly. Innovation and technology can help to better design market tools and government programmes. Digital tools and mobile devices are being used by the Asian Development Bank in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to increase the efficiency of insurance and offer additional services to farmers such as credits, weather alerts, soil moisture monitoring and meteorological information before planting decisions are taken to encourage risk-reducing practices Insurers will be able to access more information using digital tools to inform their risk sensitivity and this will be reflected in their pricing. For instance, insurers might not insure farmers if there is a drought is predicted.

Discussions centred around the role of technology in reducing risks so that farmers can make better decisions and increase revenues and reduce their risk profiles. The ability to link all the information provided by satellite imagery, soil moisture sensors, farm management systems, precision agriculture will mean that farmers will be able to make more informed decisions. They will plant at the right time, plant more resistant varieties, and reduce the number of applications of chemicals and fertilizers. They will reduce their input costs and increase their revenues. Data will be available to design insurance 7

programmes that reflect the individual farmer’s risk profile and farmers will be able to be charged a lower premium.

Joe Glauber made the point that it is important for policymakers to understand why producers do not participate in risk management programmes before choosing to use subsidies to encourage participation. For example, indemnity insurance is costly and insurance companies require a lot of information for the underwriting and actuarial rules. Policies should be co-designed in a participatory process so that farmer risk is understood and producers can communicate their requirements and government can be clear about what farmers are responsible for. Technology has to be part of the backbone of an enabling legal framework which uses risk layering and investment in data is essential.

Session 4: What are the lessons from COVID-19 for food systems resilience?

Moderated by Lee Ann Jackson, Head of Agro-Food Trade and Markets Division, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, OECD. Lee Ann opened the session discussing the need for food systems actors including farmers, supply chain actors and governments to take a proactive approach to build resilience and not a reactive approach. The food supply chain performed remarkably well during the COVID-19 crisis in terms of its short-term absorptive capacity dealing with the initial input bottlenecks, labour storages notably for seasonal labour for harvesting, shutdowns; transport disruptions, rapid and unprecedented shifts in consumer demand with the collapse of consumption food away from home and supermarket purchases of some items soaring. Some bottlenecks remain but food chains showed remarkable resilience. Policymakers contributed to this by alleviating unnecessary restrictions and dealing with risks to food security issues for the poor and vulnerable. Keeping trade flowing was essential for food security. Building resilient agro-food chains requires keeping domestic, regional and international agro-food markets open, transparent and predictable; ensuring that food and nutrition needs of vulnerable populations are met; and seizing opportunities to enhance the resilience, sustainability and productivity of the agriculture and food sector.

Preeti Ahuja, Practice Manager of the Latin America and Caribbean Region for the Agriculture and Food Global Practice, World Bank Group discussed the impacts of Covid-19 in food systems in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region. Within the LAC region, there are countries which are net food exporters and net food importers. Malnutrition is a significant problem in the region and food insecurity grown as a result of COVID-19 in particular for female-led households. For example in Haiti the number of food insecure people has increased from 4 million to 4.4 million from a total population of 11 million. Food production in Central America is being negatively impacted by extreme weather and hurricanes and poor infrastructure means that food waste and post harvest losses remain a problem in the LAC region. The World Bank Group applied lessons learnt from past crises i.e. the Avian Flu, 2008 food price crisis, and Hurricane Mathew in 2016 and began bi-weekly food security phone surveys to get an understanding of challenges on the ground in order to rapidly implement targeted responses. Responses included fast tracking the COVID-19 finance facility of USD 160 billion and reorienting ongoing projects to provide emergency support, along with activating interagency, public/private and cross border coordination mechanisms to share information. Providing short term emergency responses linked to the protection of livelihoods is being balanced by the need to promote a long term resilient recovery.

Eileen Bentley, Head of Client Capability, Bord Bia (the Irish Food Board) explained that Bord Bia is the state agency for the Irish food and drink industry and is responsible for linking Irish suppliers with 8

customers around the world. Ireland exports 85% of its agricultural production to over 180 countries and the EU and UK are Ireland’s largest markets. Dairy, meat and livestock, consumer packaged goods and alcohol represent Ireland’s top four exports. In 2020, the resilience of the Irish food and drink industry was challenged by COVID-19, Brexit implications and the economic performance combined.

However, Ireland maintained its total value of food exports at EUR 13 billion. Bord Bia’s COVID-19 response was initiated in March 2020 as countries went into lockdown. It focussed its efforts on gathering and sharing real-time trade and consumer insights with industry as supply chains became severely disrupted. In early April 2020, Bord Bia undertook field research with consumers in European, Asian and US markets to understand emerging consumer behaviours and to get a sense of what behaviours might "stick". In October 2020, this exercise was repeated. Bord Bia ran 150 webinars, produced Bi-weekly Market Insight Reports and more than 80 Podcasts covering 27 markets and 25 global customers. First hand information on the challenges, needs and requirements Bord Bia customers were facing to maintain supply amidst all the disruption provided the themes for the podcasts. Bord Bia’s 10-12 minutes podcasts were extremely effective for getting information to industry in an accessible format and had received over 10 000 views. Bord Bia uses a mix of platforms i.e. FaceBook, LinkedIn, Tweeter to reach food supply chain actors.

Thomas Hertel, Distinguished Professor of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University started by noting that international trade was one area where the global food system has performed well over the past 16 months. International food trade has remained open and the trade restrictions that characterized the food crisis of 2007-2008 have been avoided thanks in part to the transparency provided by Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS). Tom highlighted his recent research that concludes that previous estimates of climate impacts on agriculture have understated the likely impacts on production particularly in the humid tropics where most of the world’s poor live. Furthermore, many studies have likely overstated the potential for adaptation to climate change in the poorest countries due to limited access to capital, weak institutions and poor governance. International and regional trade will be even more essential for mediating between regions where food supplies are plentiful and those where shortages arise.

Panelists discussed the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the agricultural sector by investing in infrastructure, enhancing productivity and linking small farmers to markets as well as the importance of trade governed by a strong multilateral trading framework under the WTO. Data is missing to be able to model resilience and trade impacts of shocks. Tom Hertel mentioned a 5 year international effort to create a network of transdisciplinary researchers focusing on global sustainability and resilience, called GLASSNET, which will focus on food systems global-to-local linkages. Preeti Ahuja stated that macro and granular data is needed and in an emergency response data needs to be collected rapidly to inform policy decisions.

Eileen Bentley explained that to help prepare Irish businesses for future shocks and future food trends Bord Bia uses data and analytics in its foresighting efforts. According to its research in 2035 consumers expectations will be that food is sustainably produced, convenient and healthy, nutritious and promotes mental fitness. Bord Bia shares these insights to build the capability of food and drink industry actors so that they can take actions to prepare to meet these trends.

Tom Hertel, who is one of the scientific experts contributing to Action Track 5 Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses, was of the view that as part of the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021 countries should support establishing a mechanism like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for food systems so that academics and scientists can make recommendations for global food systems actions.

9

In closing Tetsuo Ushikusa, Chair of the OECD Committee for Agriculture and Deputy Assistant Minister for International Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan stated that the GFA and the OECD resilience work has helped countries share their experience on resilience and risk management approaches and that it is evident that there is room for improvements in the design of policy tools including by using digital technologies. Investment in public goods and infrastructure is vital and trust in government is essential so that farmers and stakeholders understand the structure of existing policies so they can adapt their expectations and prepare accordingly. Famers are best placed to improve their resilience. Tetsuo Ushikusa finished by thanking the OECD Secretariat, the Italian Government and all the presenters.

In closing the meeting Marion Jansen, Director, Trade and Agriculture Directorate, stated that the scale of recent natural hazards, in terms of both their frequency and intensity, is particularly concerning for the agro-food sector. Shifting away from coping with the impacts of natural hazardinduced disaster after they occur to building and strengthening resilience is the goal which can be difficult politically as there is always the temptation to provide ex ante assistance. Risk management policies need to be designed in a collaborative manner with stakeholders to establish trust. The policy toolkit for individual farmers needs to be targeted, and expectations and responsibilities need to clearly defined to motivate farm level change. Marion stated that work on policies to manage risk and build resilience is continuing and will involve developing a better understanding the factors that make farmers more resilient using the Farm Level Analysis Network; looking at how policies can be strengthened to increase the preparedness of agriculture to manage long terms risks, and how policies can foster systemic resilience in the face of climate change. Findings will inform considerations at the 2022 OECD Agriculture Ministerial about future work priorities. The challenges facing the food and agriculture sector are of a long-term nature, so resilience to be a continued priority for members.

Following the closing of the meeting at 3:30 pm delegates were invited to two breakout rooms. Jesús Antón moderated further discussions on improving the policy toolkit for agricultural risk management and Lee Ann Jackson moderated further discussions on lessons learnt from COVID-19 for food systems resilience.

10