Defining the Problem Is the Problem: Policy Participation and the Future of Our Agrifood System

Defining the problem is the problem. In agri-food systems, what may appear to be a straightforward technical challenge, producing enough food to feed everyone is, in fact, shaped by a complex web of competing values and priorities. While there tends to be agreement that our current agrifood system is not serving us well, there is rarely consensus on exactly what needs to change, let alone how change should happen.

Through conversations with farmers, policymakers, researchers, and food system advocates, this study tour explored the challenges facing our current agrifood system, with a particular emphasis on the policy process and how it can help address these challenges. While the initial intention of this work was to focus on policies to support a transition to agroecology, it became evident early into the research that many of today’s pressing issues, including climate change, biodiversity loss and human ill health (the triple threat) are not only complex but also highly contested. As such, they cannot be resolved through a one-size-fits-all approach, whether that involves prioritising particular production systems, investing in technical fixes, or even attempting to achieve full consensus. In fact, the limitations of binary thinking, such as organic versus conventional, land sparing versus sharing, plant-based versus animal-based, or local versus global are polarising debate and stalling progress.

There are, however, key leverage points that were identified throughout the research, which, if addressed, could radically and positively impact the agrifood sector within the United Kingdom. These are specific areas where a considered intervention could significantly shift the system as a whole (Meadows, 2009), thereby fostering innovation to address complex challenges. The primary aim of addressing these leverage points is to increase diversity within the agrifood system, and agriculture in particular.

This report proposes that improving diversity within the agricultural sector is not a ‘nice to do’ or a sideline project which makes organisations look good, only to be quickly dropped when budget restrictions bite. Diversity is the very life-blood of future innovation, and vital to addressing the triple threat. Diverse perspectives bring new understanding, and new solutions to longstanding problems. Without broadening who is included in shaping the future of our agrifood system, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past and entrenching further the current crises.

To do this, this study tour identified access to land for new entrants, the creation of meaningful livelihoods and access to new markets as key areas where policy could enable effective change if it is informed by both the lived experiences of those working in food and farming, those who are traditionally excluded and is responsive to local contexts. Fundamental to these three leverage points is the need to prioritise diversity and inclusion. It is therefore vital to have a framework for participating in and influencing policy discussions; one that moves beyond traditional issue advocacy and lobbying approaches and finds a way to work productively on the ‘wicked’ issue that is our current agrifood system. There is a role to play in addressing the diversity challenge, at individual, social and structural levels. Indeed, any person or organisation that is interested in working towards a more sustainable agrifood system, must be prioritising diversity and inclusion in order to successfully drive change.

Drawing on insights from systems thinking, the report proposes a participatory approach to support more inclusive and context-sensitive policy development. Rather than offering a singular solution such as a wholesale transition to agroecology, it argues that by encouraging a diversity of perspectives, valuing lived experience, recognising different forms of knowledge, the policy process could support incremental yet cumulative change across the agrifood system even in the absence of complete consensus.