1. Introduction

The definition and conceptual description of “food systems” has already been covered in Chapter I, with special reference to the global food system. This chapter analyzes certain peculiarities of national food systems in Latin America, including the current institutional organization that prevails in the region. This analysis will provide the essential descriptive background and then propose the core elements of the “necessary institutionalism”.

To such end, it is useful to follow a line of thought that includes the following steps: (i) presenting the concept of food system, its evolution and the factors that determine it; (ii) reviewing the “map of actors” (economic and productive, as well as institutional) that take part in the national food systems of the region, and finally, (iii) presenting a set of simple and pragmatic proposals to improve the institutional mechanisms required for a better governance of national food systems in the region.

Which are the features that define a “Food System”? For a system to exist, there must be “a set of interrelated elements that orderly contribute to a certain objective” or “a set of rules or principles, rationally interlinked” (RAE Dictionary). Both definitions illustrate very well the linkages and interdependence between the productive, economic, financial and commercial players that compose what today is identified as a food system.

For food production, industrialization, commerce and distribution to operate as a system which contributes to a common objective, the diverse economic players and processes, including people, productive units, organizations, and companies, must be coordinated and organized all along the production process, up to the point where food gets to the consumers table. That being the case, the development of any part of the system will have repercussions and impacts on the whole.

Another question that needs to be highlighted is the eminently evolutionary nature of the definition and concept of a food system. A definition that can characterize and facilitate understanding about the existing regional food systems in 2021 will certainly not be the same in 2050. Having a dynamic interpretation of the food system concept is essential because the strong impact that new technologies in the fields of digitalization, information, telecommunications, and the “internet of things” have on economic and social development.

In Chapter I, it was argued that the complex global food system is integrated by private firms, groups of private firms, associations and “value chains” with a considerable degree of independence from the public sector, given that there is no effective global governance structure. On the contrary, at the national food systems level, the set of economic and productive players are articulated within a common governance system, agreed, accepted, respected and regulated through lawful contracts and agreements.

2. National Food Systems

“National food systems” are indeed national because they produce, commercialize and distribute food within the same country. However, they are not autarchic or closed, and the particular conditions of the territory, region and country in which they operate, and even the world itself, have an impact on how they produce and function. To a larger or lesser extent, all national food systems are interrelated by the economic, financial, technological, information and commercial links existing among them.

In Latin America, economies are increasingly more open in economic and commercial terms, although certain regressive trends have emerged during the past decade. In spite of that, the performance of agricultural, agro-industrial and commercial activities related to food production show today higher degrees of interdependence as regards access to global goods and services.

On the other hand, and given the importance of agro-industrial exports in the region, their national food systems are also affected by decisions taken beyond the borders of their own countries, where they carry out their production and trading functions.

This interdependence with the rest of the world is strengthened due to the fact that science and technology are a global domain that influences the performance of key sectors in the economy, such as finance and capital flows, logistics, transport, telecommunications, biotechnology and consumer behavior. As a consequence of this, the markets and the traditional comparative and competitive advantages of companies, societies and countries, are changing at a very rapid pace.

National “food systems” are built from the social, economic and productive relationships among the agricultural production units themselves (taking this term in the broadest and most inclusive sense), the set of corporate, commercial and industrial players, and a group of varied services that are beyond agriculture. As clearly pointed out in Chapter I, these social relationships are built starting from the rural territories, where agricultural production units are located and influenced by the agro-ecologic, economic, social and institutional conditions of such territories.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, which comprise four very heterogeneous sub-regions both within and among each other, the national food systems and even more so the local food systems are based on specific rural territories with different historical, cultural and agro-ecologic conditions, variously endowed in terms of investment and human and social capital. Within each of these sociocultural and economic environments, there are production systems and economic and commercial relationships set to produce the food required by the local population and that which, given their natural resources and climate conditions, may be produced with sufficient comparative advantage to compete in the international market.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that LAC has, even today, very isolated territories affected by recurrent climatic stresses and lacking in transport and communications infrastructure. These conditions are particularly frequent in Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil. This isolation limits the integration of these regions to the national food system and worsens the high levels of poverty and indigence of those rural communities.

Latin America’s national food systems have changed in the last 30 years, adjusting both to international and national changes. These processes have included the globalization of consumption patterns, the development of telecommunications (which were favored by large investments during the 90s, and then more strongly between 2004 and 2016), the improvement of transport and logistics infrastructure, connectivity and data transmission capacities. In addition, there were particularly important social policies that significantly improved income redistribution in most Latin American countries.

A consequence of these processes was that, except for some very isolated territories, food systems became interconnected, with food offer for consumers no longer being only “autochthonous”, i.e., produced in the locality where they live. Food supplies were complemented with more varied products with a higher degree of processing, industrialization and added value coming from other regions of the country and the world.

3. The food systems in the region: the factors (drivers) that determine the transformation and institutional peculiarities in Latin America

The evolution and current composition of food systems in Latin American countries have been determined by the same drivers and dynamics that were conceptually developed in Chapter 1. However, the region’s own peculiarities have differentially affected the evolution of its food systems. These differences are especially important regarding the development of public institutions related to food systems in the countries of the region. Consequently, these differences must be taken into consideration when choosing the guiding principles for an institutional reform aimed at strengthening the capacity to design and implement the food policies currently needed.

3.1. Globalization and its impacts in Latin America. The evolution of political priorities at an international level: From Breton Woods to the SDG of the 2030 agenda

As regards geopolitics and the international order, there have been successive and deep transformations in the last 50 years (1970 – 2019). Within the umbrella of the institutionalism created in Breton Woods, and with a growing influence of the United Nations system, important advances have been made in human development and the prevention of conflicts and humanitarian catastrophes. This positive scenario has been tarnished by the emerging reality of an unusual and sustained frequency of environmental catastrophes, with the consequent upsurge of environmental risks, rapid climate change and their impact on human development.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), approved by the UN General Assembly in 2015 and the 2030 agenda, beyond the diplomatic and political rhetoric, have influenced the international public opinion. The objectives and goals proposed by the UN, broadly disseminated through the media, social networks, and civil society organizations in each country, have had a major incidence in public opinion and induced governments to adopt significant commitments. These governmental commitments must respond both to the social demands of the local communities and to the trends and opinions of the international community.

Multilateralism – Open Regionalism, boom and decadence

Since the 90’s and up to the middle of the last decade, trends in international agricultural trade fluctuated between: (a) an affirmation of multilateralism and a progressive liberalization of agricultural trade, following the general trade regulations applied to goods and services, according to WTO rules; (b) protectionist trends; and (c) an “open regionalism” characterized by commercial agreement between blocks.

Within this complex multilateral framework, in early 2000, China emerged as a political and commercial disruptive force that, in a broader sense, generated a new geopolitical framework, characterized by a bipolar world — still in construction — and a weakened multilateralism.

This resulted in an overall less ideological commercial policy, more properly based on competition and commercial confrontation, as expressed in the messages issued by the United States^[1] under Donald Trump or the China of Xi Jinping, as well as in the modernized agricultural policies of the EU. These new policies have a strong orientation towards a clean production, rural development and more direct links between production and consumption, betting on stimulating food and nutritional safety based on “healthy diets”.

These developments have a strong influence on the multinational agro-food companies and the strategies followed by exporting countries in relation to global food trade. The new trade environment increases the differences between those exporting countries that still face tariff barriers to access main markets and other countries that have been able to sign satisfactory commercial agreements, mainly with the largest agricultural importers, such as United States, China, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea.

3.2. Urbanization as a guiding factor for public policies

During the past two decades, urbanization has emerged as a process with a slow but steady, impact on the organization of societies and nations, especially in the LAC and in other less developed regions in the world.

Concurrently, social inequality and poverty concentrated in the resulting big urban conglomerates. Therefore, public policies for human and social development instrumented by the governments have been focused on urban zones, displacing the concern and attention from rural issues.

This is especially evident in relation to the “macro” impact of rural-urban migration and the behavior of individuals, families and communities in Latin America. Among the 40 most populated cities in the world, with populations totaling almost ten million inhabitants or more, Latin America has Mexico City (20.1 M), Sao Paulo (19.7 M), Buenos Aires (13.6 M), Rio de Janeiro (11,8 M), Lima (9.6 M) and Bogota (7.4 M). These great megalopolises — a term including the population which lives in the city itself (administrative area or district, plus its metropolitan areas of influence — have changed the focus of public concerns and the political attention of governments. The central issues have been the development of guidelines and rules for peaceful coexistence, public safety, investment in sanitation, infrastructure, transport, communications, services and public assets both referred to citizen safety and health and education. Thus, public policies in Latin America – as in other regions in the world – changed its focus and the assignment of resources from rural territories towards urban ones.

3.3. Food systems: Public purchases

The growth of urban dwellers transformed the organization and operation of food systems. It is increasingly necessary to feed millions of people every day with safe food and a healthy and varied diet. This problem was aggravated because urban concentrations have the highest concentration of poor and marginalized population in the region. Social protection and food security programs demand that governments and local entities organize mechanisms for the public purchase, distribution and facilitation of food to improve its access by the poor. These programs include food distribution and “financial inclusion” to facilitate access to food through “loans” and “rights” (transferred through vouchers, food coupons, debit and/or consumption cards) granted by the government grants to the poor and marginalized population.

These programs require different types of food supply agreements and contracts between the main operators of the national and international food systems, and the government entities in charge of food security programs.

These food suppliers must be reliable as regards the conditions of delivery and distribution, including timeliness, opportunity, adequate prices, and food quality and safety. They must have enough capacity to stock before distributing, besides sufficiently powerful and streamlined logistic systems, including cold chains, so as to meet the conditions established in the agreements with the State. They must also have a significant financial capacity, as the State is a good but tardy payer.

Likewise, food systems — the set of intervening productive, commercial and industrial agents — are not equal in size, degree of complexity and specialization. Big differences exist between food supply programs in megapolises such as Mexico City, Caracas or Sao Paulo, and those in small cities, towns, or rural areas. The requirements and the suppliers are very different in these two cases. The smaller the urban concentration and the population to serve, the more opportunities for the participation of local food systems comprising small- and medium-sized companies, lesser-scale farmers and the so-called “short supply chains”.

Specialized programs such as those implemented in schools, ensuring a nutritious diet for millions of children in several countries of the region, have other requirements too. Countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica and El Salvador have decentralized the public purchase and supply processes from the ministries of social security or education to the local authorities or teaching centers themselves, benefiting local suppliers. This requires that local institutions both, private and public, meet certain conditions: (i) a good accounting, administrative and financial system; (ii) adequate logistical equipment, including cold chains; (iii) being able to meet the demand of educational centers with locally produced supply and (iv) devising advisory programs for associations, cooperatives and other organizations of small scale producers, including small- and medium-sized agri-businesses, to operate as reliable local suppliers.

Notwithstanding these decentralization processes, government entities in charge of public purchases, public supply companies, and the national and regional food programs have continued to depend for their purchases on big companies and national food producing conglomerates, in some cases subsidiaries of multinationals, and on big distributors as well. These are the most relevant participants in food public purchase operations by governments, as they have all the required attributes.

This dependence of food programs on the largest bidders for the supply of food explains, at least in part, the loss of relative importance of public policies and investments in rural areas, which has generated a set of negative effects in the development of rural territories: (a) damage to local food systems, affecting the productivity and competitiveness of farmers, specially small ones; (b) reduced investments in rural infrastructure, which raises the price of transport, logistics and supply process; and (c) in many cases, countries and communities have become more dependent on importing food produced outside their territories and even outside the country.

3.4. The golden decade for agriculture

In 2000, international capital flows were strongly redirected towards investments in emerging economies. On the other hand, between 2003 and 2014, price increases in agricultural commodities grew up to historical levels, reverting the negative trends of the previous decades. These two phenomena generated a favorable environment which has been called “the golden decade for agriculture”, during which most countries of the region saw an improvement in their economic performance, with a sustained and remarkable increase in national GDP (except for Venezuela and, partially, Argentina).

Most countries also made strategic investments to benefit their exporting sectors and, at the same time, applied social policies that led millions of people out of poverty. The “champion” in this “wise” combination of market conditions and social policies was undoubtedly Brazil, between 2003 and 2014.

These processes also generated sustained increases in food demand, in the quality of diets and in strengthening an optimistic outlook for agriculture. These favorable conditions lasted until 2014/15, after which capital flows and investments, as well as the price of agricultural commodities, have had negative and very volatile trends, a common trait in the region.

Figure 4.1 clearly shows the rapid increase of exports until 2014 and the subsequent stagnation. This stagnation in the past years does not affect the important participation of the region in global food exports. LAC continues to contribute an enormous amount of food to global consumption, including fruits and vegetables, as the Region with the largest net food exports (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 shows that, between 2003 and 2014, the region experienced an accelerated growth of production and exports as a consequence of the better international economic context; this allowed for investments to adapt and adopt new production technologies, increasing the productivity and competitiveness of agricultural and cattle production systems. This expansion of production was especially noticeable in commercial agriculture, including some cases of capitalized family agriculture, especially those that are effectively and efficiently inserted in local, national and even global value chains. This situation has generated structural changes in most of the production systems, suggesting that the region will continue to be a key player in ensuring global food security at low and stable prices.

These structural changes in production were strengthened by increases in the aggregate demand from both international and internal markets. On the one hand, between 2004 and 2015, international food demand grew for Latin America due to the demand pull by China and other Asian countries. On the other hand, the exit of millions of people from poverty, as a consequence of a virtuous combination of income redistribution policies and formal employment, resulted in a decade of national GDP and food consumption increases.

The impact of this expansion of national and international aggregate demand between 2004 and 2015 created the conditions for a golden decade, a great opening of opportunities for agricultural producers in many countries of the region. Many small- and medium-sized producers (capitalized, semi-capitalized and in-transition family farmers) had a clear and positive response to the growing demand by increasing productivity and food supplies. However, this phenomenon had unequal effects between countries, according to whether they are net food exporters, net food importers or in an intermediate situation.

3.5. The impact of technology: The Green Revolution, agricultural production to feed the world

The Green Revolution is the name used internationally to describe the important increases in agricultural productivity and food supply that occurred between 1960 and 1980 in the United States, further developed and disseminated by the CGIAR to numerous countries in Latin America. This technological revolution defined the global behavior of production and food supply, and consequently, of food markets.

The Green Revolution was motivated by the need to ensure the capacity to feed a growing global population, especially in those regions that emerged after the post-war and decolonization processes. It was based on scientific research applied to agriculture and the coordinated application of technical assistance, as well as the adoption of new organizational models for agricultural production which were more efficient in the use of natural resources. It also resulted in a higher utilization of agricultural inputs and, indirectly, of equipment and services.

Latin America was one of the regions that benefited the most from the results of such technological advances. Yield was significantly increased, and more plant varieties were obtained which were better adapted to the availability of water and to gradients of temperature, and also more resistant to plagues and diseases. Such varieties possessed qualitative attributes which were more oriented towards producing better final products from a number of crops, such as wheat, corn, rice, barley, sunflower, soybean and sorghum, including some very typical in the region, such as coffee or sugar cane. Tubers, such as potato, and citric fruits were also benefited. In animal production, there were improvements in the production of milk, beef and poultry meat. All these technological advances supported the development of regional food systems and their growing competitiveness in international markets.

3.6. The Sciences and Technology Revolution – The era of knowledge

Progressively, applied science and technology expanded to other stages of production linked to food marketing and distribution. Between the 80’s and the year 2000, changes occurred in processing and commercial systems and in consumption guidelines and models. The exports of gross raw materials with low added value from producing countries to consuming countries gradually incorporated new technologies that made it possible to produce and export locally processed foods.

In the past half century, much has changed as regards food production, including the geographic location of production, commercial channels, relative comparative and competitive advantages of countries and regions, the construction of productive chains, the production and trade matrix, and, finally, food systems. These structural changes modified agricultural production, from a model based on the endowment and combination of natural resources and climate organized around small- and medium-sized productive units dispersed in rural territories, to a model of increasingly bigger and integrated corporate and business units, with significant investments in equipment, infrastructure and applied technology. These transformations occurred at a global level, but were particularly intense in many countries of Latin America.

The classic comparative and competitive advantages also changed, generating new regions and territories that were able to competitively produce foods for the global market. The technological changes in transatlantic transport, mainly the combination of increasingly bigger vessels with a more effective management of containers, lowered the costs and reduced losses and time, making long distance trade more feasible.

Later, the science and technology revolution started in the 90´s, which brought new techniques such as genetic engineering, internal and in-depth study of cells, and the study of DNA, allowed for the creation of a new generation of agricultural products, adapted to geographic sites and to hitherto unfeasible soils. The natural comparative advantages definitely lost importance, while the construction of competitive advantages became decisive.

3.7. The six most influential factors related to technology in food systems of Latin America

Even if technological development was broad and inclusive, covering different aspects of the productive system, there are six areas of innovation that have been especially important in Latin America.

• Biotechnology, which allowed for a reconstruction of the new competitive and comparative advantages based on the genetic improvement of species.
• Connectivity and telecommunications, which facilitated business operations through information and communication services.
• IT and digitalization, which contributed to a higher effectiveness and efficiency in the production and commercialization of food products including traceability systems.
• The development of transport and logistics (containers, multi-mode transport systems), with the consequent reduction in costs and time for long-distance international trade.
• The consolidation of modern markets, which operate without mobilization of physical goods and, consequently, the multiplication of business opportunities.
• Bio-economy and circular economy, facilitated by new technologies, which are essential to reduce environmental pollution and to make the local and national economies more efficient.

These 6 factors or trends in technological development modified the behavior of companies and national economies. They were also responsible for the blurring of borders between the traditional economic sectors — the primary (agricultural), the secondary (industrialization) and the third (services) — and between the companies in each sector, which led to complex commercial strategies and “integrated systems” characteristic of modern food systems.

These transformations in the productive sector also derived in changes in consumption habits and diets, increasing the proximity between producers and consumers based on compliance with regulations, standards and a wider transparency in production processes.

3.8. International trade governance – “deregulation of regulations”

The transformation of the productive structure was accompanied by a progressive liberalization of agricultural trade, aligning this strategic sector for many countries in the region to the rules and trends generated initially by the GATT, during the Uruguay Round (1986 – 1994) and the successive rounds that took place after the creation of the WTO in 1995.

The Uruguay Round of GATT changed the rules in agricultural trade. Although many countries consider that the scope of the agreements reached were modest, and that many of the agreements have been mostly breached, the Uruguay Round generated a “universal awareness” in regards to the need of feeding the global population with effective, competitive and sustainable agricultural practices. To meet this objective, countries had to observe a set of standards and commitments accepted by all actors of the global agricultural trade. It lasted seven years and a half, twice the foreseen time, and towards the end of the process, it involved 123 countries. It was the greatest trade negotiation in the history of humankind and resulted in the deepest reform of the global trade system.

During these years, multilateralism was seen as the most effective way to organize and rule international trade as a way to promote economic growth and a better use of global resources. However, an “open regionalism” developed concurrently, through agreements that consolidated economic-commercial blocks between countries to facilitate economic integration, regional trade and the development of countries belonging to the same geopolitical region, and also between regions. The most significant commercial blocks created during those initial years were the EU, MERCOSUR, EFTA and FTAA.

During the initial negotiations at the GATT Uruguay Round and even after the creation of the WTO, the most important food exporting countries in Latin America negotiated as a group the liberalization of agricultural trade. They also joined efforts with other relevant food exporting countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, integrating the so-called Cairns Group^[2], which was particularly effective in advancing new rules for agricultural trade. The group, with a significant participation of Latin American countries, was instrumental in promoting food production, trade and the modification of trade-distorting policies defended by countries and blocks such as the EU, India, Japan and Korea.

3.9. The voice of consumers

The set of drivers described in previous sections, plus the rapid expansion of food consumption and demand from developing countries and changes in consumption patterns, resulted not only in the expansion of global food demand but also in the modification of the structure and functioning of food systems.

The generalization of a “global culture” linked to new food consumption habits and a higher impact of “the voice of consumers”, expressed directly in the markets, prompted the traditional “agro-centric” view to evolve into a new “consumption-centric” view. Consumers became the center of the food system, with a larger capacity to drive the market and, consequently, the productive system. That is to say, the consumers’ demands regarding the end product, its qualities and attributes, and the way in which it reaches their table, guide the business plans of the global agricultural chains. Even if this trend can be considered global, its expression in the different regions is also adjusted to the peculiarities of local consumer demands. These are highly influenced by the culture, traditions and history of each region. However, in recent times, they show some degree of cultural “hybridization”, combining local or native foods, which responds to the tastes of local consumers, with certain foods — specially processed food — coming from global consumption trends. In many countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, ultra-processed foods (fast food, snacks, afternoon refreshments for children and youths) are prepared using local raw materials with long cultural traditions, but prepared and presented in accordance to global consumption guidelines. This shows that, although local consumption traditions continue to be strong, their food demands are served not only by the local agricultural and agro-industrial production, but also by the global food chains.

This description evinces the strong interconnection that exists between the local, national, regional and global food systems and how their business strategies blend multiple capacities, interests and kinds of knowledge, in the broadest sense of the concept, which are increasingly wider and more varied. It also shows that the success of food companies and of the local food systems is based on listening to the consumer’s voice.

In order to “wisely” and effectively participate and contribute to these processes, the public sector requires similar capacities to understand how food systems work, implementing regulations for the wider social interest, which is represented by the consumers in their role as citizens.

3.10. Environmental sustainability: the demands of the international community

As described in Chapters I and III, environmental sustainability is one of the main concerns of the international community, as reflected in the media, social networks, civil society organizations, public opinion and private companies of most sectors of the economy. The United Nations and its multiple agencies have been the champions in drawing attention to deforestation, desertification, irreversible soil erosion, pollution of waters and oceans, irreversible loss of species and biodiversity, ecological imbalances and the spread of plagues and diseases — including the emergence of new ones — beyond their historical areas of occurrence. Moreover, global warming, generated by greenhouse gas emissions, threatens the quality of human life and, eventually, its survival.

This situation has highlighted the growing difficulty to feed an increasing global population, concentrated in big cities, while preserving the ecosystems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These two objectives must be met simultaneously at a regional and global level. In this task, consumers are key actors because, through the selection of the food they consume, they provide information on their preferences regarding these competing objectives.

For Latin America and its food systems, this is a particularly critical “driver”. Latin America is one of the main reserves of native forests, biosphere and fresh water in the planet, and also one of the most important regions in international food trade. The region must blend this double global responsibility of contributing to feed the world while paying attention to environmental concerns. Consequently, the environmental sustainability of food systems must become a critical area in the design of public policies.

3.11. The concept of One Health (one global health): the teachings of the COVID-19 pandemic

The economic consequences of the pandemic in the region are especially severe. Latin America will suffer a contraction of its economy of almost 10% during 2020. That is to say, the region was 10% poorer at the beginning 2021, and the shape of the recovery is still uncertain. The significant economic recovery during 2021 and the aggressive vaccination programs applied in most countries of the region generate hope for a relatively rapid return to a “normal” or pre-pandemic economic situation.

The impact of the painful and traumatic experience of the pandemic generated by COVID-19, with its overlapping economic, financial, labor, social and educational crises, has made evident the need to carefully study the interrelations between human, animal, plants and environmental health within the concept of “One Health”. This is particularly relevant in the context of the regional food systems.

The concept of “one planet health” is a major conditioning factor that must be incorporated in the production and distribution processes. It is a great responsibility for governments, civil society organizations and consumers that will be certainly translated into new trade regulations, which countries will have to adapt to and comply with. Compliance will be a new element to determine the international competitiveness of the region in food trade.

4. Food systems and subsystems as a framework for the implementation of public policies

In Chapter I, the concept of food system was described with its basic components and their existing interrelations. This analytic framework is also useful for the identification and definition of the necessary public policies and to analyze public sector organizations, which are the core topics in this chapter.

The economic and productive trends described in previous sections were responsible for shaping the national food systems in Latin America. Each country had certain unique characteristics, especially in regards to the types of agrarian structures they had and their participation in the development of food systems.

The first element to point out is that in all local food systems and in the majority of the national food systems the relative economic weight of agricultural production has decreased. However, despite this loss of relative economic importance, agricultural producers in charge of the primary phase of food production are a main component in food systems.

Consumers participate in the food system in different ways and variable degrees of complexity. In one extreme, there are small family farms or the rural population at large, which has almost direct access to what is produced therein. Some products are consumed fresh, others are transformed (grass and grains into animal protein, meat, milk, eggs) and others, partially processed and conserved. In the other extreme, a neighbor in Mexico City or the inhabitants of the peripheral areas of Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo in Brazil, or La Matanza in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires, obtain food through highly concentrated urban markets.

Family farms are a very important component of food systems, as producers and also in their role as consumers, representing an important proportion of the total population that needs to be adequately fed. After meeting their own nutritional needs, the majority of these producers sell their surplus in a regular and systematic manner, participating in local or regional markets. Some of them add to the self-consumption products other crops or cattle production activities, with the main purpose of generating the cash income they need to purchase services (health, transport, education, recreation, etc.) and goods that they do not produce themselves. In some cases, they are bound by contract to agro-industrial or commercial companies for the marketing of the surplus food they produce.

In addition to these family farms, there are larger agricultural production units devoted to medium- and big-scale commercial and industrial production which operate fully integrated to diverse markets.

All of them coexist in the same rural spaces and territories, and independently of how they are classified in the socio-economic or cultural taxonomy, they are fundamental food contributors for the planet.

In Latin America, there are many different types of productive units. Whether they are family farmers, rural small- and medium-sized companies, family companies, strongly capitalized commercial companies or their conglomerates, all of them are part of the national food systems interconnected with the global food system and, therefore, affected by the environmental, economic, commercial and technological global trends that occur in the world.

Productive chains are an important element of modern food systems. Through them, a vertical relationship is established between the different participants, including the agricultural productive units, the brokers and middlemen, etc. In most cases, they are all interrelated through an organizing agent. However, these food chains must not be seen as a linear structure but rather as a matrix relationship, where horizontal relationships between participants are as important as the more classical vertical ones.

On the other hand, the concept of food system, integrated by a great number of productive chains, facilitates the understanding of the transversal relationships and interactions that arise between different chains and their parts. These relationships are governed by the main objective of producing efficiently and according to market demand. This is the objective that all participants must respect and to which they must contribute efficiently.

Figure 4.2 presents the main components of the system and the different, interrelated functions they perform, oriented to satisfying the concrete demand that results from consumer preferences. Moreover, the figure highlights that national food systems also respond to the existing public policies and to the legal and regulatory measures of the country they belong to.

It can also be seen that in national food systems there are transversal and vertical business relationships through the local, regional, national and international value chains.

These analytical elements are useful to assess the different types of organizational frameworks that exist in Latin American food systems and to build a “map of institutional actors” who design and apply public policies related to the promotion, expansion, stimulus or regulation of national food systems.

Latin America has the special characteristic of being one of the world regions with the largest food production capacity and a very high participation in global agricultural trade. However, most of its exports continue to be, as they have been historically, agricultural raw materials or commodities, with relatively low added value through industrialization processes. The region also faces considerable challenges in relation to safety and quality standards and to the production of specialized foods aimed at niche markets, such as nutraceutical foods with balanced components to improve the quality of the diet.

With some important exceptions, such as the production of vegetable oils, coffee, meat packing, some tropical fruits, flowers and a few other industries, the agri-businesses in Latin America have not had a great economic and competitive performance at the international level. The relatively low investments and utilization of modern technological processes adapted to new consumption patterns may explain this lack of dynamism, in spite of the extraordinary natural resources. In recent years, big commercial chains and/or modern corporate groups have invested in several countries of the region, absorbing the local agro-industry and integrating it with regional and global systems, a process that has begun to change this situation.

5. The role of the State, public policies and institutions

5.1. Existing policies and institutions: their weaknesses as regards the food system concept

An assessment of the role of the Ministries of Agriculture in the region suggests two main observations: a) the progressive loss of significance they have undergone in the last 30 years^[3], and b) the dramatic changes they underwent, in terms of roles and functions, as a consequence of the public sector reforms arising from the “Washington Consensus” applied in LAC during the 80s and 90s.

While the “import substitution” strategy was dominant in Latin America, the government was the main “commercial partner-advisor” for the agricultural private sector. Farm and business managers adjusted their business plans to the guidelines provided by the public sector in three main economic dimensions: (a) deciding “what and how” to produce, based on the production and commercial indicators prepared each year by powerful statistics and policy governmental offices; (b) producing for local markets which were protected through tariffs and other non-tariff measures that blocked any regional or international competition, except for some imported products which governments considered indispensable to feed the local population and/or control inflation; and (c) receiving state loans, subsidies, technical assistance and insurance policies against climate risks, plagues and diseases or unexpected variations in the markets. The implementation of these policies and the predominance of a hyper-regulated agricultural trade for some strategic products needed influential, robust and technically competent Ministries of Agriculture.

These conditions were progressively modified as a consequence of the global and regional changes concerning the predominant economic strategies. The elimination of the import substitution strategy in most countries, the opening of the economies and partial deregulation of agricultural trade, and the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements negatively affected the institutional, technical and political capacity of the Ministries of Agriculture. Most countries became exporting countries and the main objectives shifted to lowering internal costs, eliminating bureaucracy and state intervention in the markets, and generating new conditions for global competitiveness.

The progressive dismantling of the economic model and the accompanying institutional organization was, in some places, slow and gradual, while in others it was more accelerated. However, the dismantling was imperfect and unequal, and residual mechanisms remained in many countries, with ambiguous functions and slow, complex and inefficient bureaucratic procedures. Instead of encouraging the development of a new and competitive agriculture, they hindered it due to the lack of clarity of the new “game rules”.

These changes in the economic context, the institutional reforms and the role of the state, and the new economic and business context were reinforced by the impact of science and technology. Technological development occurred in agriculture and also in other more or less related activities, contributing to the loss of the Ministries’ relative power, especially in relation to budgetary negotiations, which affected their possibilities to initiate a technical and managerial modernization.

In the 21st century, Latin America has Ministries of Agriculture with little capacity to regulate markets or provide economic incentives for agricultural production. The legal framework under which they operate, in many cases sharing responsibilities with other institutions, is insufficient for the promotion and regulation of food systems.

Based on this situation, the performance of the Ministries of Agriculture in the region has been limited, with vested functions and powers that are either obsolete or go well beyond their possibilities and operation capacities. They are entities with a heavy regulating mandate, but without the necessary capacities to effectively execute the regulations.

This has led to imperfect institutional reforms; for example, substituting the existing inefficient and ineffective executive units with projects funded through international cooperation. It has also led to the creation by law of decentralized governmental entities meant to serve as instruments of the ministerial policy, but which, in fact, given their high political representation and bulky budgets, have more powerful mandates and possibilities to implement programs and projects than the ministries themselves.

Additionally, functions and activities were formally decentralized, but the decision-making mechanisms were not. Consequently, the gap between the generation of policies in the national capitals and their execution in the territories, in relatively distant localities, departments, province and/or states, worsened.

This process created a growing misalignment between the existing public institutions and the expanding food system, integrated by multiple private players with new dynamics and increasingly more demanding of operating rules that are clear and sustained in time.

To summarize, it is possible to say that, as regards the governance of national food systems, the loss of relative importance of the Ministries of Agriculture in many countries of Latin America responds to some of the following factors:

• Their misalignment with the needs of the national food system, especially in relation to important dimensions: the preservation of the environment and the regulation of industrial processes. The sectorial agricultural policy became insufficient to incorporate the technological, commercial and environmental processes that go beyond the farms.
• The progressive loss of their institutional, technical and political capacities, with the consequent erosion of their capacity to have an impact in the productive system.

• The decentralization of important competencies to entities which, though legally under the scope of the Ministries of Agriculture in technical and political terms, have a level of political autonomy, technical capacity and budget power that make it difficult for the ministries to exercise control.

The progressive loss of budgetary and financial resources (less relative weight in the national budgets), deriving in a lower capacity to affect political and strategic areas related to the country’s economic development.

5.2. Public policies that affect national food systems. The role of the Ministries of Agriculture

One important consequence of the deep transformations and growing complexity of the local and national food systems is that they require broader and more complex public policies than in the past. Furthermore, many of the public policies that are necessary for the proper operation of food systems do not depend on, or are outside the scope of, the Ministries of Agriculture.

As a consequence, two specific themes must be analyzed. First, what functions and competences should Ministries of Agriculture have in this new context and what is their capacity to carry them out? Second, which other public entities are directly related to food systems and should thereby be considered allies or partners of the Ministries of Agriculture in the governance of the national food system?

Regarding the first question, ministries have relevant competencies in the implementation of policies to develop modern and competitive food systems, but in almost all cases, they require the cooperation of other governmental entities. Therefore, the answer is that ministries are necessary, although not sufficient, since they continue to be very important.

On the other hand, in order to fulfil the new functions, most Ministries of Agriculture in the region will require amending their charters and modernizing their structures and capacities to generate both public–public and public–private alliances and thus fulfill their mandates and responsibilities. To achieve this, the strengthening of their technical and budgetary capacities is critical for them to be proactive in the formulation and implementation of policies that may improve the national food systems.

As regards the second question, it is evident that the most important changes in the operation of the public sector are to achieve a stronger cooperation between the different ministries with an influence on the national food system. In this sense, a key point is that the Ministries of Agriculture should have the legal and operative capacity to participate, in cooperation with other ministries or government entities, in the six main areas of state intervention described below.

5.2.1. Development of rural territories

The rural territories are the location of agricultural productive units and the private sector companies in charge of adding value to crop and livestock products through conditioning, conservation and industrialization processes. The Ministries concerned with the territories, in a certain order of priority, are:

• Ministries or secretariats with responsibilities for the organization of rural territories
• Ministries or secretariats with responsibilities for planning investments in infrastructure and the supply of goods and public services
• Ministries of public works
• Ministries of environment
• Ministries of agriculture
• Provincial, state or regional departmental governments (2nd level)
• local, municipal, town governments (3rd level)

The interventions of ministries and local government entities have a direct impact on how productive units linked to food systems, especially crop and livestock productive units, resolve the following set of questions:

• Access to production factors and public goods
• Land policies which define access and possession of agricultural land
• Water management policies
• Infrastructure networks
• Access to information and technologies

5.2.2. Public investment

Public investment, either with national or foreign resources, is key for the physical, economic and human development of the territories and food systems, including their role as an incentive to private investment. In this case, the main entities responsible for public investment policies are:

• Ministries of Public Works
• Ministries and/or secretariats of Planning
• Ministries of Education
• Autonomous and/or decentralized public companies
• National and/or regional public universities
• 2nd and 3rd level of State entities
• Ministries of Agriculture (to a lesser extent)

In this case, the main investment areas are:

• Road infrastructure (routes, rural roads, bridges, sewers, other works that facilitate the transport of agricultural production)
• Logistics infrastructure. Intermediate collection, conditioning and conservation points
• Electrification infrastructure – generation and distribution, including local generating units
• Telecommunications infrastructure
• Investment in public goods, including technological developments in the processing activities
• Investment in education including specialized technical training
• Investment in basic education

5.2.3. Improving institutional capacities at the national level and in rural territories

Good public institutions are of particular importance to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and systemic productivity of all economic participants in local food systems. It is very difficult for individual companies to develop their full productive and competitive potential in unfavorable political and economic environments.

Local food systems include agricultural and non-agricultural activities. The latter are important and contribute a sizeable part of the total added value. However, it is important to stress that “everything starts” with agricultural production in the rural territories. The agricultural productive units that generate the goods to be sold and consumed are installed there. In depressed rural territories, with insufficient human resources, social capital, infrastructure and limited supply of public services, it is not possible to achieve the development of integrated and inclusive food systems capable of giving back to the rural communities the benefits they generate in terms of income, employment and services. In addition, it is necessary to generate appropriate conditions for food-related commercial activities that invest in the territories, guaranteeing that they attain adequate profits in terms of the general economic parameters.

To achieve these objectives, government institutions have responsibilities in the following main areas:

• Development of human resources
• Access to modern and efficient equipment
• Providing a secure legal framework
• Promoting the construction of social capital, based on inclusion and integration policies
• Fighting against corruption
• Promoting an appropriate business and investment environment

5.2.4. Macroeconomic and trade policies

As regards to trade policies, it is necessary to recognize the structural differences between the various sub-regions of Latin America and the Caribbean. There are three main situations: a) countries that are net food exporters, mainly in the Southern Cone, b) the broad group of countries that export and import in a balanced way, such as Colombia and Mexico, and c) the net importers represented by some countries in Central America and almost all the Caribbean. Trade policies applied by all countries include agriculture as a specific sector subordinated to the more general interests of the economy as a whole. This is why agriculture has, in many cases, a secondary role in trade negotiations. However, its pre-eminence in each country and the main objectives pursued differ depending on which of the three groups of countries it belongs to. In this area, the Ministries of Agriculture have, or should have, a key role in assisting, counselling and leading other government entities in their areas of competence. The following entities intervene:

• Ministries of Foreign Affairs
• Ministries or Secretariats of Commerce/Foreign Trade
• Ministries of Economy
• Ministries of Agriculture

As regards macroeconomic policies, the situation is quite different. Economic stability, the predictability of economic policies, and the evolution of the main economic variables are a set of general conditions which are necessary for the development, consolidation and good performance of the private sector, including the national food system. Any unexpected variation in the exchange rate, in public indebtedness, or in the rate of inflation dramatically changes the economic results of the agricultural sector and the related private sector companies that participate in food systems, therefore damaging the international competitiveness of food exports. Macroeconomic policies are much more important than most other policies, and the responsibility is in the hands of the Ministries of Economy and Finance and, in some cases, the Treasury and the Central Bank. The issues listed below, which are not exhaustive, affect the business climate, international capital flows and investments, and the performance of food systems in the countries of the region.

• Balance of payments and tax policy
• Financial policy
• Foreign exchange policy. Relative exchange rate
• Policies to attract direct foreign investments

In this area, the role of the Ministries of Agriculture is minor and circumscribed to providing an honest and reliable analysis of the situation in the food sector, as well as objective statistics to support the decision-making process in economic matters.

5.2.5. Public Health

Health policies, under the scope of the Ministries of Public Health, have important areas of intersection with agricultural policies, especially in two aspects: (i) the planning, supervision and regulation activities on the use and application of toxic chemical substances by producers and rural workers, and the attention of emergency situations related to these activities; (ii) aspects referred to supervising and regulating food safety matters.

Regulating on food safety and other bromatological issues is, in many cases, very complex. Countries have accumulated through time a large number of standards, resolutions and executive orders to address bromatological questions. In some cases, these regulations are contradictory or overlapping and add procedures and direct costs which are useless for present day food systems. Almost all countries in the region have standards that are no longer useful, not only imposed by the ministries of public health, but also by state, provincial, departmental or municipal and town governments. These are confusing regulations for the economic agents, introducing inefficiencies and additional costs that work against the functionality and competitiveness of the national food system. The ministries of Agriculture and Health must urgently review their common interests and actions to improve their regulatory functions, which are increasingly sensitive for consumers.

An issue of debate and, sometimes, a clash of interests is the distribution and consumption of genetically modified foods. It has generated conflicts within society at large and between the two ministries, with overlapping competencies: Agriculture can authorize, in accordance with the legislation in force in each country, the transgenic events, while Public Health ministries can authorize the distribution and consumption of food that contains them.

Another theme that has attracted broad interest in recent years is the high incidence of mortality and morbidity rates, related to non-transmissible metabolic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart diseases. The higher incidence of these diseases has led to pay special attention to diet quality. This has resulted in national and international campaigns meant to influence public opinion, generating renewed interest in the transformation of food systems and new responsibilities for the Ministries of Agriculture, which are required to develop new institutional capacities and interact more with the Ministries of Public Health.

One of the main policies to address this problem is increasing and improving consumer information through labeling systems. The development of a fine international labeling system should be a central objective for this area of work.

5.2.6. Environmental sustainability

Latin America and the Caribbean constitute one of the main global reservoirs of fresh water, biomass and genetic resources. Figure 4.3 shows the region’s importance, compared to the rest of the world, in terms of its endowment of strategic resources which are essential in determining the life quality of humankind.

This observation highlights the reference made in Chapter I about the importance of environmental issues when considering the region’s food systems. The point to emphasize is that national food systems must be able to produce at an internationally productive and competitive level but, at the same, preserving and protecting the natural resources. Consequently, public policies directed to environmental preservation and protection, and the economic incentives provided to agricultural production must be carefully harmonized and applied in the rural territories themselves, especially in connection with fragile ecosystems.

The Ministries of Agriculture and Environment are the institutional entities with shared responsibilities in this area, including a great number of different situations and problems that require a coordinated work. Among them, it is worth mentioning: a) productive practices that reduce the net emission of greenhouse gases on the part of the food system, b) territories with high desertification risks, fragile wetlands and native forests, key for the environmental and hydric balance of broad regions, c) pastures and savannahs with native species adapted to the agro-climatic conditions, exhausted soils and courses of water with growing levels of contamination; and d) deforestation, the destruction of biomass for agricultural and cattle production. All of these elements have an irreversible impact on hundreds of territories and habitats, affecting the quality of life and livelihoods of thousands of people and communities. Deforestation and the destruction of natural habitats has moved some importing countries to impose trade restrictions on items that are not produced under certified environmental conditions.

Territories that suffer deforestation require special care. Their occupation and economic utilization by the private sector frequently generates institutional and legal conflicts between the ministries of agriculture and other institutions with environmental regulatory competences. Accordingly, a virtuous and articulated interaction between ministries with shared responsibilities is increasingly necessary in all matters relating to enforcement, control and certification at a domestic level. This will enable the region to inform and assure other governments, and also consumers, that the environment and its natural resources are duly protected and respected.

Ministries of agriculture also have a shared area of competence with ministries of the environment in the control and effective compliance of international commitments undertaken by each country regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by its national food system. This is a very sensitive issue from a social, economic and political viewpoint in all countries of the region and requires political consensus and consistent and coordinated actions between both ministries.

6. The Ministries for Food and Agriculture

The organization, capacities and effectivity of the ministries of agriculture has been a subject of intense academic and political discussions in the region.^[4] These discussions have sought to find specific and applicable responses to the following questions: are ministries of agriculture obsolete, frozen in a 20th century model? What do they need to effectively attend the new reality of food systems, both in terms of regulation, oversight, control, traceability and certification, and also in relation to incentive, promotion and investment policies?

An undebatable role for the ministries of agriculture is related to the health and phytosanitary status of each country, enabling them to export, overcome quarantine obstacles to trade and discourage the application of non-tariff barriers. The ministries must be quite stringent when regulating and overseeing the traceability of food products and secure the utmost academic excellence in the case of conflicts. It is a very important role because the access to agricultural markets depends on this function.

Another function that is important, yet complied with a high degree of dispersion in terms of quality, effectiveness and efficiency, is the provision of technical assistance and rural extension services, meant to deliver the necessary and appropriate technologies to all types of farms.

Many other functions such as monitoring prices and markets, the preparation of agricultural statistics, or monitoring agricultural risks (climatic, plagues, diseases and markets) are generally within their competences. However, not all these functions are implemented with the same consistency, intensity and effectiveness in all countries. An effective performance requires not only internal capacities but also an adequate interaction with other areas of government.

Therefore, one important objective of any program meant to modernize the ministries of agriculture should be, in addition to modernizing and strengthening their own structures to perform their specific functions with the highest level of excellence, to reinforce the synergies and complementation with other ministries and public institutions. This also includes institutionalized political dialogue with the agricultural and non-agricultural private sector to address the new complexities of food systems.

The institutional structures of the ministries of agriculture^[5] in the world are variable. In Europe^[6], most of them have clear and defined competences on: (i) agricultural sectorial policies; (ii) animal and plant sanitary situation; (iii) agricultural science and technology and extension; (iv) rural development; (v) food production and the relationship between production and consumption, (vi) food safety, traceability and regulations for certification in these fields; (vii) natural resources and the environment; (viii) fisheries; and (ix) forestation, in most cases.

In addition, they have extensive competence on food and nutrition regulatory matters for the promotion of productivity, competitiveness, quality and safety, distributed within their several directions and executive units.

It is interesting to see, for example, some of the functions and competences of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation, given its importance in global agricultural markets. Its main functions are: (i) development and support of agriculture, livestock and fisheries; (ii) rural development; (iii) regulation of agricultural markets; (iv) fishing and transforming industries; (v) quality of products; (vi) records on phytosanitary, fertilizers and other inputs; (vii) sanitary and phytosanitary policy; and (viii) international cooperation.

Food, nutrition and food systems are concepts that are not explicitly mentioned, although there are policies and functions related to them, which suggests a more holistic conceptualization of a food system.

The cases of two other influential countries in the global agricultural and livestock markets such as New Zealand and Australia show, in their respective ministries of agriculture, a broad array of functions, competences and actions, which incorporate the concepts of food and nutrition with a systemic vision. In the case of New Zealand, the Ministry of Agriculture intervenes directly, supervising the industries to ensure the quality and safeness of food for consumers and compliance with standards and regulations. These are supervised and certified by the Ministry throughout all the food chain. New Zealand’s strategy in regards to its Ministry of Agriculture appears to be quite consistent with a food systems vision which not only seeks to regulate, control and certify, but also to inform producers so that they understand and adopt the production requirements regarding health and phytosanitary regulations, guaranteeing their products’ access to the domestic and export markets. The Ministry provides technical assistance to producers and exercises competences on the development of rural territories. The Ministry’s vision is based on its contribution to “New Zealand as the most sustainable supplier of food and high-value primary products in the world”. The concept of food is clearly incorporated in its institutional management and operations.

The DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Forestation) of Australia has, among its wide variety of functions, a department specialized in “food trade” that interacts with other technical and regulatory areas within the ministry. Such areas are key to fulfill its competences.

The USDA in USA has broad competences in terms of sectorial policies, incentives to production, animal and vegetable health, quality of agricultural products and foods, technical assistance through local agencies, incentives for productive chains, management of water and soil conservation, access to markets, commercial promotion, and application of quarantine measures and sanitary protection to imported agricultural and livestock products. Food products and their quality, safeness, and authorization for human consumption are within the scope of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This agency regulates and controls safety standards such as the presence of harmful chemical substances, labelling standards to reflect the nutritional features of food through a detailed description of ingredients in packaging, and the traceability of raw materials. The Agency is also responsible for overseeing the quality of diets and research and development activities, and for authorizing foods for consumption, which has an impact on trade and imports.

Finally, in this summarized and partial vision of how the concepts of food, nutrition and food systems are incorporated in the competences and functions of the ministries of agriculture, it is worth looking into the People´s Republic of China situation. In this case, the entity is called Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and is competent in the agricultural production policies in a wide array of issues, including sanitary, phytosanitary questions, production and markets, science and technology, bio-economy, agricultural mechanization, fishing, and the management of state agricultural farms.

This ministry is also in charge of policies regarding rural development, settlement of rural producers, measures on land access, possession and productivity, and issues related to agrarian reform and rural work. It also has a department specialized in the quality and safety of agricultural production but does not incorporate environment, natural resources and ecology affairs, which belong to the sphere of two other independent ministries.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the situation is very varied. A sample of cases were analyzed using the information available in their web pages and organization charts, focusing on their main executive units, departments and independent entities. The analysis confirms that, in general, the scope of their action is on agricultural and livestock production and on rural territories. In most countries of the region, the ministries of agriculture do not have broad or comprehensive competences on the food system, but there are departments and/or executive units that include partial aspects of food systems.

The trend in the last thirty years has been to slowly incorporate the concept of food, as opposed to agriculture, into the political, technical, promotional and regulatory definitions used in the ministries of agriculture, although with partial approaches.

In the case of Argentina, one of the countries with the greatest potential for food production in the world (together with its MERCOSUR partners), the Ministry of Agriculture presents, within its organizational structure, the Secretariat of Foods, Bio-economy and Regional Development. This Secretariat is in charge of developing strategies, studies, investigations, economic reports, commercial intelligence reports, and value chain and prospective analyses, contributing to the necessary coordination with other entities which are jointly responsible for increasing food exports.

Brazil, the main exporter of agricultural and food products in MERCOSUR, has the MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing and Nutrition) as a powerful entity responsible for the policies on agriculture, livestock production, forestation, fishing, sanitary and phytosanitary matters, rural development, family agriculture, cooperatives, trade, markets and prices, and the application of quarantine barriers to agricultural trade. MAPA also supervises a great national company whose purpose is ensuring food supply to the population, especially the most vulnerable, purchasing and selling agricultural products, aiding social plans, managing food stocks and guaranteed food prices, etc. This is a very important company which has had highs and lows in its role within Brazilian economy. It does not address food systems in a comprehensive manner and, as in other cases, policies and instruments are distributed among different federal and states entities.

Chile has a renowned Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI), especially due to three of its main executive agencies. The first is the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG), responsible for animal and crop health within the country, including the maintenance of a high, well-recognized sanitary status which has positioned Chilean crop and livestock products in multiple markets. A second agency is INDAP (National Institute for Crop and Livestock Development), which has a very significant budget disbursed through a wide network of regional departments providing farmers, especially family farms, with technology, information, organizational capacity and training on financing. Finally, the third agency is ODEPA (Office for Agricultural and Livestock Studies and Policies), a very powerful unit for the design, analysis and evaluation of policies and prospective scenarios for Chilean agriculture. Its work includes food systems policies, although the Ministry does not address them as such. The main functions of the Ministry have been defined as follows:

The MINAGRI aims at reducing social inequality through an expansion of incentive instruments, with a priority in favor of family and campesino agriculture. Another fundamental task is to contribute to the addition of value in agriculture, which implies promoting the development of the agrarian economy based on technology and innovation, as well as on the deepening of the attributes that boost productivity and competition in agriculture: the quality, safety and health of crop-livestock production. At the same time, this development prioritizes in a relevant manner the wellbeing of rural workers, our communities, our culture and our natural resources.

In the case of Colombia, the crop-livestock and rural institutional organization in the public sector suffered significant institutional changes before, during and after the signing of the Peace Agreement between the Government of Colombia and the FARC. Recognizing the ‘campesino’ and rural roots of the armed conflict, along with the incidence of illegal crops in the irregular farmer economies, the agrarian question was one of the main chapters of the peace negotiations and of the subsequent agreement and its implementation. To such end, the institutionalism had to be revised and restructured. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Colombia includes a series of very important autarchic entities in terms of their responsibilities and the resources they command. Their responsibilities include areas related to land access and possession, rural settlements, natural resources, and the environment, especially in departments with fragile ecosystems that are threatened by livestock and agricultural production. Their main goal is to attain a national self-provision of food and to increase agricultural export, boosting value chains in Colombian agriculture. The Ministry shares functions that sometimes overlap with those of the Secretariat of Planning and the Ministry of Environment.

The Ministry of Agriculture is organized in two vice-ministries: a) the Vice-Ministry for Development, with competences in regulating rural property and the use of soils, management of rural public assets, productive and income generation capacities; and b) the Vice-Ministry of Crop and Livestock Affairs, in charge of policies to promote and support the crop, livestock, forestry, fishing and aquiculture value chains, financing and risk management, innovation and technological development, and sanitary and phytosanitary protection.

There are, in addition, entities and/or corporations responsible for issues related to rural development, land restitution, territory renewal, management of promotional funds and financial risks, research on crops, and livestock production improvement. In addition, there are public corporations with limited functions in relation to the public supply of grains and other foods. Their functions are limited, at least in the current circumstances, but their performance and incidence are quite different, according to the territory where they are located and their socio-economic context.

It can be seen that neither the Ministry nor its autarchic entities have incorporated a food system concept or a holistic approach, except for the fact that several departments and units take care of some key topic within the national food system.

Mexico is one of the most influential countries in the region and its agriculture had to adapt, since 1994, to operating within the framework of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which entailed dramatic changes for a quite extended and heterogeneous country with very different agricultural production areas. On the one side, it counts with a competitive commercial crop and livestock agriculture, integrated to internationalized agro-industrial value chains. On the other side, there are regions and states where campesino agriculture still struggles to gain space as a key activity for the development of its communities and territories and ensuring the livelihood of these populations.

The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fishing and Nutrition (SAGARPA), has the purposes of “fostering the exercise of a support policy that improves the country’s production, exploiting the comparative advantages of our agricultural sector, integrating the rural activities to the productive chains in the rest of the economy, and promoting the collaboration of productive organizations with their own programs and projects, as well as with the proposed aims and objectives for the agricultural and livestock sector, in the National Development Plan”.

SAGARPA is assigned development functions for the agri-food sector, but the approach followed by its executive units lacks a systemic nature, while the instruments of policy and the resources used are diffuse, often overlapping with actions of other local institutions.

The SAGARPA includes, both in its name and in its function description, responsibilities related to food and nutrition. In its functional organizational chart, there is an undersecretary that specifically deals with the food and nutrition sector. However, as in other countries in the region, this is more rhetorical than real. In fact, it is the Secretariat of Social Development (SEDESOL) that has the mandate and the resources to design and apply most of the effective programs for food security strategies and policies in Mexico. On the other hand, the institutional responsibility to enforce regulations related to food trade is distributed among different entities of the federal government and the states that compose it.

This brief analysis suggests that in several important and influential countries, in terms of agricultural and food trade, the Ministries of Agriculture are always present and intervene in issues that affect the performance and competitiveness of food systems, but in almost no case are they addressed from a systemic perspective.

7. The necessary institutional organization

7.1. Considerations prior to concrete proposals

When the ministries of agriculture were created in Latin America, and until the middle of the last century, the main determinants of each country’s production were what they knew how to produce due to cultural and historical custom and the comparative advantages they had, based on their natural resources and the capacities of their rural population. On the other hand, the consumer countries purchased what the exporting countries offered, in the conditions they did. This started to change in the 70s, when both technology and the increased power of consumers modified the game rules and drove institutional reforms in many countries of the region.

The consolidation of food systems currently under way, at a national and global level, posed new questions and challenges in terms of public policies and, consequently, the need to adjust public institutions to the new economic, social and technological conditions.

As regards the national food systems, the main responsibility of each government is guaranteeing the food security of the whole population. Beyond ideologies and the diverse political approaches, the governments must protect the most vulnerable sectors of the population and ensure an adequate access to food, applying strategies and policies of social protection and food and nutritional security when necessary.

On the other hand, the governments must also ensure that local and national food systems comply with the other four attributes described in Chapter III. This is especially important in the case of food exporting countries, which must adapt to the demands and restrictions imposed by importing countries.

These new needs and challenges in the sphere of public policies make it necessary to examine and rethink the public institutions responsible for food systems. It requires adapting and simplifying their complex legal frameworks and revising the functions assigned to the ministries of agriculture. To such end, some general principles to take into account are the following: (i) standards must look for participation schemes and consensus among all the actors that are part of value chains and food systems and subsystems; (ii) recognition of the interdependence of all participants; (iii) clear guidelines to guarantee the highest effectiveness and efficiency of food systems; (iv) strengthening the institutional mechanisms responsible for the application of regulations, improving their technical quality and providing for the training of their human resources and the equipment needed; (v) regulating the transparency and accountability of the whole system, which assures the consumers’ and the participating commercial agents’ trust; (vi) fighting against corruption so that the law is impartially enforced with scientific rigor.

7.2. Possible alternatives to improve food systems’ public management

Implementing a successful political and institutional process to modify the existing public sector institutions and adapt them to the objectives of developing and governing a more competitive and sustainable national food system is not an easy task. It requires a solid political system and ample social consensus from all the participants involved in the food system.

Current food systems include a large number of economic participants and productive processes that are necessary to produce and supply, on a daily basis, an enormous variety of foods to the table of millions of consumers. However, and in spite of such complexity, the structure of public institutions in charge of promoting, supporting and regulating them should be, both in its “anatomy” and its “physiology”, as simple as possible, so as to avoid inefficiencies, bureaucratic obstacles and unnecessary regulations that limit freedom in production and trade.

In the following section, four plausible options are presented for an institutional organization in charge of overseeing a national food system. The main objective, in all four proposals, is to strike a proper balance between the effectiveness of policies applied to the national food system, taken in a holistic manner, and the possibility of making government interventions that overcome a partial or sectorial logic.

The four alternatives, which are fully developed later on, are: (i) a better articulation and coordination within the already existing institutionalism, which would require the existence of an institutional space within the government to function as a facilitator and organizer of such coordination; (ii) the creation by law of an organizational entity, which could be a Department, Under Secretariat or Secretariat for Food Systems, according to the organizational features of the country. It would be at the level of the Head of Government or Presidency of the Republic and would require a powerful political consensus to exercise its competences and be sustainable in time; (iii) strengthening the institutional mandate of the current areas in charge of food and nutrition matters within the existent ministries of agriculture, revising their mandates, functions and operational structures; (iv) the creation of a permanent “ministerial cabinet” for food systems. It would be supported by a specialized committee, with representatives from the private sector and the science and technology community.

7.2.1. A better articulation and coordination within the existing institutional organization

This alternative does not entail deep institutional changes. It only requires assigning new coordination functions, and the necessary budget to exercise this coordination, to an existing executive unit near the top level of the Executive Power such as a Secretariat within the structure of the Head of Government.

The appointed secretary or undersecretary would be in charge of convening all participants of the national food system to implement plans, programs, projects, or specific initiatives arising from any of the following three organizational levels of government: (i) at the national level, ministries that present initiatives, preferably shared by several of them, about a given territory, sector or food subsystem; (ii) at the state, provincial, regional or departmental level, initiatives presented by the local authorities, supported at least by a sectorial ministry; (iii) initiatives presented by local authorities such as mayors, supported by a sectorial ministry. The secretary would also have competence to uphold initiatives and actions proposed by the private sector, represented by companies and/or their unions, provided that these initiatives are supported by a sectorial minister. To implement these initiatives and ensure their permanence in time, a strong political support will be required not only from the executive branch of government, but also from parliament.

The proposed institutional mechanism is a potentially effective instrument. It can generate more agile and effective responses if exercised through political dialogue with the private sector, without steamrolling the functions of other governmental units, and building on the existing opportunities for coordination and consensus.

7.2.2. Creation of a new Secretariat for Food Systems, at the level of the Head of Government or Presidency of the Republic

This proposal is similar to the previous one but includes the creation of a new secretariat, or similar structure, for food systems closely linked to the head of government. This new organizational element provides a stronger political message and more explicit bureaucratic power.

This new secretariat would be a coordination unit responsible for planning and allocating funds to activities, in an effort to strengthen the national food system. It would be autarchic and count on external budget resources, acting based on annual plans agreed with other ministries and secretariats responsible for the execution of the agreed actions. The secretariat would have the legal authority to guide the utilization of the budgetary resources allotted to those sectorial ministries that intervene in investments and regulatory and promotional actions for food systems, once the proposed plan of action has been approved by the Council of Ministers. The secretariat would not have administrative or technical structures of its own, or overlapping executing units. Once the plan of action is approved by the Council of Ministers, the secretariat would authorize and oversee the use of financial and investment resources to execute the agreed actions through the specialized units of the competent ministries.

This Secretariat would also be in charge of facilitating and conducting a permanent dialogue with the private sector on public policies related to food systems. Such consensus-building will give way to structural changes and generate a favorable institutional environment for a competitive national food system. The Secretariat has the responsibility to submit annual plans and/or specific actions for Cabinet approval.

7.2.3. Ministries of Agriculture with enlarged competence on the food system

In several LAC countries, the ministries of agriculture have, as in the EU, undertaken activities and competences related to the food systems as such, articulating and coordinating policies, instruments, and resources. In most cases, strengthening this type of organizational structure would require legal reforms to expressly define these competencies in the mandates of these ministries. It would be necessary to incorporate a secretariat for food systems and the appropriate budgetary and territorial dimensions.

7.2.4. Creation of a Cabinet for the Food System and a Sectorial Committee

This is the most attractive and powerful of the four options, but also the most complex to implement. It has been used by some countries to address the environmental issues arising from the UNFCCC^[7]. It also requires wide political consensus to implement it permanently. The formula is attractive due to the broad representation and political power it entails, offering the opportunity for a specialized, prolonged political dialogue with the private sector. This is necessary to generate analytical capacities, develop strategic proposals and aid the execution of public policies.

The cabinet’s institutional location would be within the Presidency or Head of Government structures. The secretarial function would be assigned to the Secretariat of Planning, in those countries where this office exists, or to another existing secretariat, most likely within the Ministry of Agriculture.

In addition to the cabinet and the specific secretariat, a sectorial committee would be created with private sector representatives as the main participants of the food system. They would be part of the deliberation within the cabinet, advising the government in food system matters and presenting concrete initiatives.

These two instances would be responsible for the following medium-term policies: (i) investment policies needed to strengthen the food system; (ii) the development of policies and investments in those territories where food systems operate and have the potential to be competitive and commercially successful, ensuring that they are inclusive of all types of farmers and the rural population; (iii) implementing environmental policies and regulations to guarantee the sustainable use of natural resources and, at the same time, the competitive performance of food systems; (v) the coordination of policies aimed at promoting agro-industrial and local added value; (vi) promoting public-private and private-private alliances; and (vii) the facilitation of food trade at the national, regional and international levels.

A committee of general directors from each Ministry would be responsible for supervising their implementation, while representing each ministry’s interests and possible contributions to the collective actions agreed by the Cabinet.