1. Introduction: a food systems approach

This first chapter seeks to highlight, define and specify the concept of “food system.” It intends to show how the evolution and transformation of agriculture itself make it necessary to have a broader and more comprehensive concept to describe the activities carried out around food production and consumption. In this concept, agriculture is not just one more sector or an isolated production activity. It is part of a complex and transversal system of related activities, markets and economic value production. Analyzing this complex system requires a broader and more rigorous analytic framework that is fully incorporated in the food system concept.

In this evolutionary process, local food systems progressively became the basis on which national food systems were built. Such local food systems belong or are anchored to a given territory. In the specific case of South America, a region that is clearly still in an urbanization stage, with important changes in what is commonly known as the “rural area”, rural territories have renewed links with surrounding cities. This greater interconnection with the local economy and markets and the development of better means of communication, particularly of digital technologies, have diminished transaction and transport costs and helped blur the differences between the urban and the rural, often making it difficult to distinguish one from the other^[1]. It is for this reason that the analysis of food systems requires a territorial and multi-scalar view, to understand how they really operate.

2. Food system evolution and dynamics

The concept of food system may be analyzed from a long-term historical perspective that has been evolving and becoming more complex in parallel with economic development. It is part of the broad process of producing, gathering, transforming, distributing and consuming food for the various human societies.

Evolutionary processes have generated very rich and diverse agricultural and food knowledge, which may be described as systems. But it was only after the Industrial Revolution that the market began extending and generalizing and, to a certain extent, homogenizing food systems. Agricultural innovations, especially starting in the second half of the 20th century with the so-called Green Revolution, have achieved notable increases in agricultural production and productivity, multiplying by various orders of magnitude the availability of food in the world. Throughout history, food systems used to be local or regional, but with the development of markets, they also acquired a national and, only later, a worldwide dimension.

Despite a growing international economy, trade in agrifood was merely a fraction of the volume of global trade. But this changed rapidly in the 20th century, and the volume of agrifood trade grew markedly, giving rise to a new and important international dimension. A global food system thus emerged, dynamized by an increasingly integrated world economy with lower transport and transaction costs.

Globalization and economic openness have fostered a harsh competition for international markets, and more integrated global agrifood value chains have appeared beyond national borders.

2.1. From agriculture to the food system: structural changes in the development process

Almost everywhere in the world, agriculture has grown markedly in the last century. Despite several regional crises, and even several famines, it may be said that agrifood production, as a whole, has been able to meet the demand of a growing population which underwent a fourfold increase in the last hundred years and became urbanized at a rapid pace, diversifying and expanding its food demand. However, in spite of this significant growth, the relative weight of agriculture as a percentage of the entire economy has been shrinking worldwide and also in the specific case of Latin America.

The notable structural changes entailed by the general economic development process resulted in the growth of agricultural productivity being insufficient, no matter how significant, to equal or exceed that of other more dynamic sectors of the economy, such as the manufacturing industry and, very particularly, the services sector, leading to a reduction of its relative importance in total GDP.

The academic analysis of agriculture in the economic development process has emphasized its role by transferring value and resources that facilitate and contribute to the industrialization process and to general economic growth. These issues have been reviewed in depth by various authors, such as Chenery^[2] and Kuznets^[3]. More recently, Alain de Janvry and Elisabeth Sadoulet^[4], citing such authors, as well as the World Bank in its already classic publication on contemporary agriculture, the 2007 World Development Report, put the matter in perspective: the share of agriculture in the GDP and of rural labor in the primary sector drop secularly as the economy grows and per capita income increases^[5]. In the beginning, rural labor decreases in relative (percentage) terms but later does so in absolute terms too.

In this entire process, rural-urban migration is a practically universal key factor (Harris and Todaro, 1970^[6]) and a key element to be taken into account in any agricultural and rural development strategy.

In addition, in countries that are structurally very heterogeneous, as is the case with most of Latin America, agriculture makes other significant contributions to development. As pointed out in the pioneering and classic work of Johnston and Mellor^[7], agriculture contributes to development through five strategic tasks^[8], which are still in effect except in very advanced regions that are already completely industrialized and urban. Nevertheless, they were essential to understand how agriculture fits into a world that was starting its development and industrialization process^[9] around 1940.

Empirical observation and the analysis carried out in the literature concerning the historical decline in the contributions of agriculture to GDP have had a negative impact on the collective vision of its strategic importance for development. This has resulted in the secondary role assigned to agriculture in the design of development and public policies.

However, in more recent times, with the increase of agricultural productivity and positive repercussions of more complex production processes on the general economic growth, multiplier effects and forward or backward (production) linkages in the agrifood chain have also increased. This fuller and more sophisticated view was introduced on the basis of Albert O. Hirschman’s pioneering works^[10]. In a way, these were the first steps towards the current conception of food systems.

The key point that must be stressed is that this growing complexity of production processes has resulted in a smaller decline of agriculture’s GDP share, which becomes even less significant by including agribusiness and commercial food transformation activities and taking forward and backward linkages fully into account.

The first quantitative estimates of this phenomenon were made by the Interamerican Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) under the definition of “expanded agriculture”. Table 1.1 presents the estimates made by IICA almost 20 years ago.

Table 1.1. Gross domestic product and agricultural value added in US$ billion and percentage, for 1997

Source: Trejos, Rafael et al. (2004). Más que alimentos en la mesa: la real contribución de la agricultura a la economía. IICA, Costa Rica.

As may be seen, in the case of the US and Canada and, in part, Mexico, the most industrialized countries in the hemisphere, expanded agriculture makes significant but lesser contributions than those seen in the rest of the countries. In the latter, except for Brazil, where contribution stands at 26%, expanded agriculture represents more than 30%, or one third, of total GDP.

More recent estimates made in Mexico in 2014, but with a different methodology, suggest similar results. In the aggregate, the agricultural (and fishing) sector merely contributes 3.5% of GDP^[11]. However, when including agribusiness and storage and distribution activities, the contribution rises to 4.8%, which means that, in the aggregate, it represents 8.3%. The food and beverages industries account for no less than 21% of the national industry, which gives a clear idea of the weight of the agrifood sector.

Both table 1.1 and the more recent data on Mexico clearly show that, while agriculture drops as a percentage of GDP, this is not the case for the food system as a whole. This wider perspective suggests that the national food systems continue to be one of the main sources of employment and value generation.

These truly systemic production linkages in the agricultural stages have been a significant source of growth and value aggregation in the regional economies. However, it is worth noting that, despite the foregoing, there is still a wide space and a great need for productivity increases in primary production, since that is where the population is less served by governmental social services, particularly in education and health. It is in the rural environment that the largest number of persons in a situation of poverty is found.

Furthermore, the analysis of this more complex agriculture, closely linked to other sectors of the economy, must include other challenges of the sector relating to the environment and the preservation of natural resources. Climate change, increasingly scarcer and costlier water, the degradation of soils’ biodiversity, and the current rapid rate of deforestation are some of the most relevant issues^[12].

Seen from a different angle, the rural environment can significantly contribute towards addressing the new environmental challenges described above. These issues, which are discussed in greater depth below, explain why the rural sector is currently considered the provider of environmental services, thereby adding a new dimension to the agriculture and rural territories. The development of a complete food systems vision and the required public policies must also take these new dimensions into account.

3. Food systems: a theoretical-methodological approach

The view of the agrifood sector as a food system, which is transversal and has multiple interrelations, allows for a more precise vision of the current problems of agriculture, the territories and biomes where it is deployed, and the ways in which economic value is created through complex production chains of agrifood supply. It makes possible the identification of an economic development route, where the food system has the challenge of developing more sustainably, both environmentally and in an economic and social sense, aimed at producing healthier and more nutritious diets.

3.1. Food system: a definition

Various definitions have been proposed for the concept of food system. According to FAO:

Food systems encompass the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products. Food systems comprise all food products that originate from crop and livestock production, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the broader economic, societal and natural environments in which these diverse production systems are embedded.

For its part, the Scientific Committee of the UN Food Systems Summit has proposed the following definition: “The food system includes the production, transport, the agroindustry that processes and produces, food marketing activities and consumption of food, as well as the impacts on the environment, health and society.”

It may be seen that while both definitions include all actors involved in the food production chain and their interactions — the consumers and the economic, social and environmental context in which they develop —, they do so in a static manner^[13]. For that reason, the following alternative definition is proposed:

The food system is the aggregate of all the activities relating to food and the environment in which they take place: political, socio-economic and natural-territorial. The food system has many feedback loops. Generally speaking, it begins with a combination of productive resources such as land (soil), water, capital and work, to which are added the activities of transformation, storage and distribution to constitute the “supply”. The system is completed with the activities or actions of consumption and nutrition, which constitute the “demand”^[14].

In other words, the characterization of the food system must take into account “the biophysical-environmental, institutional and economic environment in which it operates”^[15] and consider the issues of poverty and health, as they relate to the activities to satisfy food security.

It is important to point out that food systems may be defined at different territorial scales (subnational, national and global) and that, by definition, they are not closed systems or watertight compartments. In fact, they are continuously interrelated through the market.

The systemic approach implies working under the methodological framework applied to the “system” in connection with the entire agrifood process, analyzing its organization and the interdependence relations within such complex entity^[16]. The systems describe the interrelations existing between a group of socioeconomic actors and other physical and qualitative elements that constitute them, their causal links, their interactions and their dynamics, including production units, government institutions, technologies, markets, the quality of food products, zoonotic diseases, roads and infrastructure, and end consumers. These interactions are manyfold. In the case of open systems, interactions also refer to the external environments, acting through inputs that are incorporated or enter the system from outside, and products (outputs) that are yielded by it. According to Pinstrup-Andersen, the systems approach is useful to address complex problems involving causalities and multiple results derived from their interactions within the system. The approach considers a given entity or system in its entirety, with its inputs, dynamic interactions, products and feedbacks.^[17]

A recent paper states^[18]:

It must be made clear, however, that the concept of food system does not replace that of agriculture but rather assumes it comprehensively. Agriculture continues to be a fundamental activity, although it has been losing weight in the formation of value, by comparison with agribusiness processing transformations and market distribution. The concept of food system stresses the interrelationships or linkages in “value chains” or supply chains, which go from cultivation to consumption, through different phases or stages of transformation and value aggregation. In this respect, it is very useful. The food system may also be analyzed from the point of view of the market and price formation: production, transformation and demand activities, related to distribution and consumption. It is thus extremely useful for descriptive and analytical purposes. Among other things, it is useful to understand the issues related to food and nutritional security.

3.2. The food system: its main components and economic and social actors

Food systems analysis entails, as a key assumption, studying the whole as a complex system and considering its multiple linkages in a nonlinear manner. The basic elements of a food system are the following:

1. natural resources and inputs;
2. primary production;
3. storage, transport and various exchanges of primary commodities;
4. secondary transformation or agribusiness processing;
5. storage, transport and distribution of processed goods; and
6. consumption, including nutrition and human health attributes.^[19]

Therefore, designing public policies for this multiplicity of actors and their many interrelationships requires to move from agricultural policy to agrifood or food system policy.^[20] This issue, with particular reference to Latin America, will be discussed in chapter IV.

These items or main actors constitute the core of a food system and interrelate mainly in the so-called “value chains”. Within them, market structures and the possible restrictions to food access for consumers, whether for economic reasons or due to deficiencies in distribution, must be considered. These, in turn, are influenced by various drivers that will be discussed below. Several economic agents or actors participate in the value chains, which may be very simple, with few links, i.e., “short chains”, “long chains” that are extremely complex, or “very long” chains, generally associated with global markets.

Despite their differing scales and areas of operation, all food systems have similar socioeconomic participants and components, whether agricultural or otherwise. Furthermore, food systems at various levels of aggregation — local, domestic and global — are very often interlinked through market mechanisms with various degrees of complexity.

Figure 1.1 shows, schematically, the various components that make up a food system. On the one hand, there are the main socioeconomic actors (ovals) and, on the other hand, the main economic activities or functions that are carried out inside the system (rectangles). The arrows provide an idea of the flow direction.

The figure also shows that a food system consists of two subsystems. The first is composed by the set of processes and economic functions that contribute to food production and supply, while the second is made up by the consumption/demand functions for food, i.e., by the consumers.

1) Small farmers and rural entrepreneurs

This is a very important group of actors and the basis of most local food systems. They are in charge of the production or gathering of various types of food. While there are many medium and large-sized agricultural companies with technological capabilities, small farmers or rural producers predominate from a numerical standpoint.^[21]It is estimated that there are over four hundred million small producers worldwide, who are, as Alain de Janvry points out, “one of the most important social categories in the world”^[22] because of their number and function. The huge majority of farmers or rural producers are very small-scale, and more than half of them are in China and India. In Latin America, calculations indicate that there are some 14 million smallholder units: approximately 60% are subsistence farmers^[23], 12% are commercial, with market-oriented production^[24], and the balance, 28%, are the so-called “transition” production units, which fluctuate between the market and self-subsistence. De Janvry points out that even in Atlantic South America, where production units are usually larger, 54% of the units measure less than 10 ha^[25]. The other 46%, comprising almost one and a half million units, is more modern, better capitalized, larger, and aimed at the market.

2) Inputs Providers along the various value-chain links

These are enterprises of all kinds and sizes that supply primary producers with critical inputs to enable production. These inputs are mainly seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals, as well as machines and equipment for various purposes, including irrigation. Very often, these companies provide credit to producers.

Seeds are the most critical and important inputs. Quite often, they are produced by the producers themselves on site, but increasingly by specialized companies, particularly in connection with larger production units. It is a very heterogeneous industry where participants range from small producer associations to the government itself or large transnational firms. They produce and sell different types of seeds including indigenous, improved, hybrid and, in some places, also transgenic seeds.

The fertilizer industry, particularly the producers of nitrogen fertilizers, consists in more complex and larger industrial plants. It serves a growing number of producers who no longer use organic fertilizers as the main fertilizer. In addition, there is a wide range of industrially-produced agrochemicals. Demand for biofertilizers and natural nitrogen fixatives is growing, but this is still a budding sector, very far from meeting the fertilization and pest management needs of agriculture as a whole. In subsequent stages of the value chain, such as the harvest and post-harvest, there is a demand for sacks, plastic silos, large storage silos, packaging and other types of products for transformation, storage and transport.

3) Agribusiness and transformation processes

A large proportion of vegetables and fruits and some grains may be consumed directly; but a large proportion of all food, including the produce of fishing and aquaculture, undergoes various kinds of transformation processes. These agribusinesses, which are usually complex, represent a very important stage in the formation of value in production chains. They usually operate in cities, within the “urban-rural systems” described earlier. Within the food system, these are the most varied items and often require other inputs and equally varied external support services. They generally participate in the credit system and usually provide finance to agricultural producers.

4) Storage and distribution in various links or stages of the food systems value chain

Storage needs in food systems are huge. Seeds, fertilizers, grain and all kinds of supplies need to be stored and kept in the various value chain links. In addition to the storage networks, many products require cold and freezer networks, which add much value but are very complex and costly. Storage and cold networks are supplemented by transport services.

The distribution of fresh, processed or transformed food is another very important network in current food systems. It is the end point before reaching consumers, the last link in a food chain. In general, smaller and simpler production units are less separate from the consumption process. But as their market share increases, production units grow and diversify, making specific units or additional companies dedicated to distribution necessary. Fresh, processed and packaged food is usually sold in stores of all kinds, commonly small or medium-sized neighborhood stores^[26].

The so-called “supermarkets” deserve particular attention. This is the most dynamic sector of the food distribution link and has gradually displaced small and medium-sized food stores^[27]. They are eminently urban, but ever more important in small and medium-sized cities. Their demands exercise great influence all along the supply chains^[28]. They stock up from various sources located far away and, in the case of small cities, usually displace or “strangle” local supply chains or short chains, indirectly affecting local agricultural production units.

5) Sale of prepared food for direct consumption

The sale of prepared food prepared for direct consumption by end users is a different activity that becomes increasingly important as countries urbanize. The companies selling such food are very varied. They range from food sold in small informal or ambulatory establishments, on the city streets or in popular stores or premises known by different names in different countries^[29], to the vastly diverse and extensive restaurant networks of all kinds in the cities. Health issues in this stage of the food chain are usually blurred and overseen by health ministries.

These five food system components generate large amounts of rubbish and waste. Various studies, especially those carried out by the FAO^[30], note that within the food value chain, waste and losses of raw materials and food may reach up to 30%. This is a serious problem, common to all domestic food systems.

6) Consumers

Finally, at the end of the chains are the sovereign consumers who, on the basis of their food preferences, establish a specific market demand. Through such demand, they exercise great influence on the food system as a whole. In other words, food systems are demand-driven, and the entire production seeks to adjust to such demand as expressed through the market.

3.3. Food system operation: the role of markets

Both in the aggregate and inside the main links of a food system^[31] — production-transformation-distribution-consumption —, various markets are formed, generally interconnected, through which prices are determined. In addition, the food system may be conceptualized in terms of the two subsystems identified in Figure 1.1: on the one hand, supply (production, transformation, distribution) and, on the other hand, demand (consumption)^[32]. The two are intertwined through the food market, where prices are formed. This allows the analysis and modelling of the food system, both at the various production stages and at the end point of food price formation, without losing a systemic vision^[33]. Moreover, food systems, above and beyond the market, operate as well within a complex economic and social framework, the description and analysis of which is beyond the scope and purpose of this text.

Furthermore, local or subnational food systems must be analyzed in the context of a new rurality, less isolated but differentiated from the urban environment. It is precisely inside of a local food system where “urban-rural” interactions and links occur, not only directly but also inducing related activities in local or short value chains.

The design of public agrifood policies requires the use of the food system concept to properly understand the complex array of economic actors and the technical and economic interrelations among them^[34]. This owes essentially to the fact that it captures better than other analytical approaches the complexity, horizontality and interrelations regarding agriculture and food^[35] in their varied dimensions. It also allows for a better understanding of feedbacks and multiple causality in value chains and price formation, within the various markets concerned^[36]. It covers from agricultural policy to agrifood policy using a broader and fuller analytical model for policy formulation^[37].

3.4. Dynamic factors that promote transformations of the food systems^[38]

To understand the dynamics of the development of food systems, it is necessary to know which are the drivers promoting and molding them. Such drivers are phenomena or processes which, in one way or another, intentionally or otherwise, have an influence on the evolution and operation of food systems. Such dynamic factors introduce true structural changes in the forms of producing, processing or consuming food, including changes in diets and culinary cultures. These changes will have an impact on human food security and nutrition.

Recent literature identifies many types of “drivers” or dynamic factors^[39] affecting food systems. There are three basic types of drivers that correspond to environmental concerns, considerations related to socioeconomic and cultural aspects, and issues related to the urbanization process. In this document, the main reference will be the six categories developed by Bendjebbar, Dury et al.^[40], which are synthetic and comprehensive at the same time. Such authors describe six types of dynamic factors as the main food system drivers:

1. The scope, characteristics and evolution of environmental and biophysical conditions, such as the relative natural resource endowment, like water and soil, the state of biodiversity, climate and its changes, as well as the various forms of pollution in the biosphere. Their effects on the food system have a particular impact on basic production processes and their efficacy and productivity.
2. Demographic factors affecting the producers involved in production chains, the food consumers, and the changes in demand, both in quantitative terms and as regards changes in consumer preferences. In this connection, it is necessary to consider, for one part, the growth of the population itself, which will retain its rapid pace and, for the other, migration and urbanization, perhaps the factors with the greatest impact on demand and changes in diets and culinary cultures.
3. Innovation processes, technology and infrastructure, all of which are extremely important and have a great influence on food system dynamics, both in terms of production and transformation (supply) aspects and of demand, relating to their impact on transport systems, trade and food marketing.
4. Economic factors that have an influence both on demand and on supply. They include changes in per capita income, prices and markets, local and international trade, financial systems and, in general, globalization itself, seen as a broad economic and social phenomenon with multiple influences on contemporary economies and societies. Particularly worth noting is the fact that changes in per capita income have a marked impact on the composition and nutritional qualities of diets. Generally speaking, when income increases, diets diversify and the ingestion of proteins increases, but the consumption of fats and sugars usually increases as well, resulting in the ‘regressive paradox’ of greater consumption coupled with greater degradation of nutritional values.
5. There are sociocultural drivers. These naturally include the diets and cuisine of each country and culture. In many countries, these culinary cultures or traditions have a strong historical and identity root. At present, some of these factors collide with a progressive “westernization” of diet content and even of consumption practices, such as eating at home or in restaurants.
6. Political drivers related to matters such as the legal and regulatory frameworks for food system governance. Public policy design and their content are also included, as well as the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating them. It is clear that these political factors refer both to demand and to supply factors.

3.5. Food system operation and scope

The ultimate goal of food policy is to achieve an adequate food security for all. In other words, according to the basic definition proposed by FAO, “for all people, at all times, to have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”^[41]. This objective is stated and may be achieved through comprehensive policy actions concerning food systems: in other words, by incorporating food security and nutrition into the food systems themselves.

4. Food systems: scales and areas of action

Food systems operate at different scales and are all interconnected in various ways, mainly through the prices that apply in different markets. There are three main scales: local, domestic (national) and global, which share similar structures and operating patterns.

4.1. The local scale

Local food systems have a new and important role within the framework of the so-called “new rurality”, in which small agriculture — commonly known as family farming agriculture — is of permanent importance. The new rurality refers to two main phenomena. First, the hitherto clear difference between the strictly rural and the urban has become gradually blurred, with both areas mixing and interrelating increasingly. Most agricultural communities are very close to some city, whether small-, medium- or large-sized. The “deep rurality” of small isolated communities, very far from urban centers, is shrinking. A second consequence of this phenomenon is that most peasant families no longer derive their main income from strictly agricultural activities. Instead, such new rurality is made up of various activities, some related to agricultural work but others clearly differentiated from farm work. There is a growing rural, non-agricultural economy (RNAE) often directly linked to the operation of food systems and the short value chains they comprise.

This rural environment is also part of a different demographic and migratory pattern owing to the intense global urbanization process.^[42] Thus, the rural or farming population decreases in relative terms and it will soon do the same in absolute terms, reflecting the deep structural changes that are taking place. The new rurality and the consideration of territories as urban-rural units or systems is a relatively recent approach that is being used to analyze agriculture as part of the broader, transversal framework of food systems.

This has consequences on the design of public policy. Until now, the sectorial view has been the predominant methodological perspective in the design of public policies and support programs for rural producers and their families. Furthermore, the subjects of such policies have been, generally speaking, groups of producers or families from a given region or settlement, without giving much consideration to their geographical or territorial environment nor the biomes where they are located. The territorial vision^[43], on the other hand, sees all of them as a substantial part of the productive and consumption web that constitutes the subject of public development policies.

This is an important recognition of the new rurality’s increasingly evident production link, which is the permanent and active mobility of persons and productive resources between the cities where they are located, and agricultural and livestock-producing areas. This is no longer just the traditional concept of “hinterland”, but rather mutual economic activities taking place at the local or regional scale. Rural cities, generally small- or medium-sized, are an important productive link for local economies and their respective regions. In this sense, a systemic analysis is extremely useful, as it enables a clearer understanding of the structure of local or proximity food chains, commonly known as short chains.

In those territories where this new rurality is taking place, family or smallholder agriculture^[44] is an intrinsic part of local food systems and one of the most common forms of production. For that reason, it is essential to strengthen small family production units, which are the largest and most important form of production in Latin America, with some 14 million units or productive plots and more than 60 million persons^[45]. The so-called small family agriculture is often a source of supply and food security and a basic engine of local food systems.

Small cities play a strategic role in the urban/rural interface. They are the basis for the territorial integration or “embedding” of local and regional food systems, acting as the nodes of a spatial interaction network among various settlements and their areas of economic and social influence. They are responsible for articulating numerous economic functions between the rural (agricultural, forest, etc.) and the urban environment.^[46] It is in this type of small cities where many non-agricultural economic activities (NAEA) take place, often linked with the value chains that make up local food systems. In other words, they are the unavoidable area of proximity for any agrifood strategy at the local level.

In Latin America, the large majority of small cities have between 10 and 60 thousand inhabitants, with an average size of about 30 thousand inhabitants.^[47] In general, they are precariously equipped in terms of infrastructure and roads, and their services are usually deficient and relatively costly (hydraulic sanitation, waste disposal, local transport, etc.). Often, formal trade with long supply chains discriminates or strangles weak local supply chains, which require specific support to prosper and become stronger.

The main limiting factors and deficiencies faced by small cities stem precisely from their size, which makes the provision of appropriate infrastructure more expensive, as well as from their limited management-level human capital and weak governance. They often suffer from serious levels of poverty, informality and job insecurity. For these reasons, investments are needed to enable essential activities within local development strategies related to food systems In other words, the question is promoting not only basic agricultural or livestock-breeding activities, but also the broad set of related activities pertaining the local food system

Small and some medium-sized cities become the core of a territorialized strategy to promote local or regional food systems. Basically, they need to be equipped with better accessibility and connectivity to lower transport costs and, through capital investments and assets, establish and enable productive clusters, including short food chains.

5. The national or domestic scale

This scale refers to a food system within the borders of a given country. It is perhaps the most important dimension or scale from the standpoint of the design and implementation of public policies. This geographical dimension is regulated by national governments, the entities which have the broadest and most powerful policy instruments.

Domestic food systems have the same structures, economic actors and functioning as local or sub-national food systems. However, the domestic food system is not simply the aggregate of the local or subnational food systems. Its genesis and operation are the result of dynamic interrelations among local systems taken as a whole. The specific characteristics of these interrelations depend on resource availability, the laws and the modus operandi of the domestic markets, along with the opportunities and circumstances of the external markets to which the country has access. It is important to consider not only the characteristics of the production chains for each supply stage, but also each country’s diet and consumption peculiarities. If, at the local level, short agrifood chains are especially relevant, within an entire country, long chains are of primary importance.

At the national scale, we can see the history and culture of each country in the predominant diets and culinary knowledge or, more precisely, its national food system. However, it is also true that, as a consequence of globalization, there are very few relatively autarchic countries in agrifood terms, and diets are becoming increasingly similar all over the world, at least in terms of their nutrient contents. For instance, consumption of processed foods is becoming widespread, protein consumption is preferred, and fat and sugar consumption is growing. Almost all countries, in varying degrees, are increasingly open to the international agrifood market.

6. Global scale: the global food system

The so-called global food system, which comprises the broad set of national food systems,^[48] has been growing rapidly. Its basic operating systems are similar to those already described for the previous scales, and the peculiarities added at the global level are expressed primarily through transnational investment and international food trade^[49] — whether grain, meats, fruit, or fresh and processed food —, as well as through various inputs. It is organized in long value chains. More than 20% of food consumption worldwide originates in imports.

Regional or national supply shortfalls and surpluses are offset thanks to international trade, and agrifood markets are stabilized through the price mechanism. In other words, it plays a key role in food security at the domestic and global levels.

Between 2000 and 2019, world agrifood trade tripled in terms of value, growing at rates in excess of a 7% annual average, more than one percentage point above trade in all goods. Thus, agrifood trade went from accounting for 6.7% of total trade in 2000 to 8.5% in 2019.^[50]

To develop a fair global food system, we should take into account and balance the following five dimensions or attributes, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter III:

1. Being capable of expanding production in an efficient and sustainable manner, serving an ever greater and more exacting demand;
2. Being environmentally sustainable;
3. Observing quality- and human health-related standards;^[51]
4. Meeting international nutritional quality standards; and
5. Being socially and economically sustainable.

The possibilities and means to construct a better global governance mechanism, capable of guiding the development of a balanced global food system, is further discussed in chapter V.

7. Food systems and the paradigm of long-term sustainability

The fundamental function of food systems in each of the three levels (local, domestic and global) is to adequately feed the population that depends on them. In this connection, the efficiency and production capacity of such systems — and thus, the quantity, quality and price of the food offered — are the basic objectives sought.

However, more recently, the sustainability paradigm has posed a new challenge to the practice and development of food systems. The concept of sustainability is universally accepted. Its definition is as elegant as it is apparently simple: sustainable development is “a development style that makes it possible to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the possibilities of the future generations to meet their own needs.”

However, making sustainability operational and measurable over time has turned out to be an arduous and complex public policy exercise. We must understand that it refers to inter-temporal preferences. Hence, the variables considered a priority today may not be as relevant tomorrow or may be replaced by others through ceaseless technological innovation or due to changes in consumer preferences. Furthermore, the sacrifice involved in postponing or containing a given type of consumption over time entails possible conflicts among various social groups or age brackets. This conception of sustainability is becoming incorporated into the scope of food system development, especially in regards to two main dimensions, the environmental and the socio-economic, which are essential to the analysis described above.

However, at the international level, environmental sustainability is the most developed dimension. The Paris Agreement and the periodical high-level conferences (COPs) have installed it as the overriding preoccupation at the global level. Environmental sustainability expresses itself in the global food system through the following three main linkages.

The first link refers to climate change, which has been fully incorporated as a guiding principle in the concepts of “green economy”, “circular economy” and, more recently, as part of the Green New Deal proposed by the European Union^[52]. The latter is particularly interesting as it points to a renewed multilateral route for action and fully incorporates not only the purpose of environmental sustainability, but also of decarbonizing the economy, fighting against global warming, and a greater effort towards global equity.

The second link relates to the critical interaction between climate change and zoonosis, two of the greatest challenges of the contemporary world. The advance of global warming and its impact on some elements of the food system are already a clearly established fact which progresses in practically every region:

Global warming not only affects climates but also alters the times and modes of germination of an infinite number of plants, impacting some vital cycles of earth, such as those of water and nitrogen. All this, in turn, has multiple effects, one of which is the disruption of the habitats of species and pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi) and, hence, the marked zoonotic impact seen in the last few years^[53].

The zoonotic impact refers to the illnesses that humans acquire in their interaction with animals. Diseases transmitted from animals to humans are ostensibly increasing as the destruction of pristine habitats progresses. Their loss is clearly related to the serious and growing emergence of zoonotic diseases^[54] and the rapid propagation of the COVID-19 virus, which is the first large-scale health crisis in the 21st century. Various illnesses also caused by viruses^[55] are magnified owing to factors that are characteristic of globalization, such as trade and the international mobility of persons.

A third link is the growing loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity is the great reservoir of life on the planet, and its value is immeasurable. The natural surface of the planet, or the biomes where biodiversity as a whole is expressed, is essential to maintain the temperatures of the Earth and, along with its forests and jungles, constitutes the largest carbon cesspool in the planet. It is important for food, the medical industry, and the production of dyes, resins, adhesives, and fibers, among many other goods. Furthermore, biodiversity provides valuable environmental services and landscaping, while decisively supporting the tourist industry.

In this regard, Latin America is the most biodiverse region of the planet^[56], adding great value to its territories^[57]. Biodiversity is being lost at a rapid pace all over the world; but Latin America is the region with the smallest loss (in percentage terms) of its original biodiversity capital.^[58]

This problem is a consequence of climate change, soil erosion and the exploitation of natural resources by certain food systems that operate unsustainably and without sufficient environmental regulation. Particularly important cases are those of land-use change through accelerated urbanization and massive land clearing for agriculture and livestock production. The negative impacts of land-use changes, whereby forests, jungles or significantly biodiverse lands are plowed, cannot be considered a strictly agronomic phenomenon. On the contrary, its systemic effects are potentially of great magnitude.

Accordingly, the development of food systems — agricultural growth in particular — must be based on increasing the productivity of suitable lands, preferably already occupied, as well as on strengthening local value chains and other non-agricultural activities^[59]. In other words, there is very little margin left for expanding the so-called “agricultural border”. It is necessary to develop a fuller territorial vision that includes the resilience of territories and of local food systems.

The effect of these three closely interrelated processes, intimately connected to food system development, is extremely important for the evolution of civilization as we know it. This is a true crossroads of civilization, where it becomes clear that the prevailing production and consumption patterns in some countries and regions are clearly unsustainable and must transition to more sustainable production systems.

For Latin America, this is a difficult challenge. The region’s socioeconomic vulnerability is very high, being the most unequal in the world. Large layers of its population live in poverty and various degrees of social exclusion, within informal settlements or in acute rural margination^[60].

But the region also has a very important role and responsibility in contributing, through its food exports, to global food security. The way forward must be based on the development of efficient and sustainable national food systems, using science and technology to integrate and balance all these dimensions related to long-term sustainability with the need to increase food production to feed the world.