 Welcome to this event, Focus on Governance, a framework for more effective policy and technical support. My name is Günter Hemrich and I will moderate this event. I'm working as a senior advisor at FAO with Maximo Torero. The event today marks the launch of FAUSE Framework Paper on Governance. This paper was published last year and is available in six languages, and those who are here in the room may have found some copies of it at the entrance. Before we start, I would like to just make a few logistics announcement. The first, this event is recorded, so we kindly ask for your consent for this recording. Interpretation is available because we will have some French contributions as well, so there is interpretation both on the Zoom platform and here in the room. For those in the room, you will find the headset embedded in your table. You need to plug it in and then Channel 1 is English, Channel 2 is French, and you can switch between both. The publication that we are looking at today is the work of many years of the Governance and Policy Unit in FAO with the aim to create a common framework for analyzing governance issues related to food and agriculture and to strengthen the effectiveness of FAO policy and technical work at all levels. When we look at governance, governance is very close to the work of this organization. It's embedded in its constitution. It was made also a cross-cutting theme of FAO's work in the previous FAO strategic framework where governance was made a cross-cutting issue across all strategic objectives. And in the recent strategic framework, it's at the center of the accelerators that underpin the transformation of food systems. So it's a very topical area of work. The framework that we are presenting today has also been applied in several countries and we will hear examples from Indonesia and from Tunisia. Our Indonesian colleagues are online now, so we will start with the Indonesian experience later. Before that, let me briefly give an overview of how the event will unfold. The objectives are to make you familiar with this paper and with the four-phase framework that is embedded in it. For this, we will have the opening and the stage setting by the chief economist of FAO, Mr. Maximo Torero. Next, we will take a closer look at the framework itself. And my colleague Duprafka Boijs will present the framework to you. Duprafka has also been working very closely with the governance support network here in the organization in terms of developing the framework. There are three principal authors in this framework. Duprafka, Michael Clark, who you will also see at the end in the closing of this session, and Klaus Urban. And the framework is dedicated to his memory. Klaus left us very unexpected in March 2018, and he has been the thinker behind the framework that we are presenting to you today, so that's why the framework is dedicated to him. I now hand over to Maximo Torero to open the event for us. Thank you very much, Gunter, and good morning. Good afternoon for the people which are linked from our countries and our regions. It's a pleasure to be here with you and to launch the framework paper Focus on Governance for more effective policy and technical support. The question is why we want to put such an emphasis in governance? The answer, I think, is straightforward. Policy and governance support are essential to all the work we do across the board. It's essential for all the work that we do day-to-day in FAO and how we link and try to resolve and achieve this EU, VG2. The FAO constitution states that nations accepting to join the organization have done so to promote common welfare by furthering separate and collective action for the purpose that constitutes our world non-mandates. FAO is not only concerned with furthering collective action. The organization is itself an instrument of global governance and through a wide variety of relationships supports its members, efforts to achieve more effective, separate collective action at the regional, national and subnational levels. For more than 75 years, the organization has made important normative contributions to governance for food and agriculture through a variety of instruments, including numerous international agreements and treaties, contributions to the development of international national law and through non-binding but impactful instruments such as the voluntary guidelines promulgated by the Committee of World Food Security. FAO roles and responsibilities in governance are continuously evolving. You all know that today we face significant challenges and there are different mechanisms through which we operate at FAO, all the G process, the G7, the G20. All the different meetings that we are part of the fertilizer coalitions, the global, the food system summit, the multiple coalitions that are being built, all these mechanisms are towards the 2030 agenda and towards achieving the SDG too. And that's where SDGs present tremendous technical and policy challenges that we need to work out. Just to understand that every SDG when it was designed was thought as an individual element as a silo and we need to change that. We need to break those walls and we need to interlink them. Today when we talk about a system, it's basically looking at the interrelationship between the different elements and the different SDGs and that's exactly what we can do in governance. We can look at the rules of the game, how we can interact and how we facilitate that process because we have to accelerate the synergies and the complementarities. We can no longer do itself alone. We have to look at complementarities across the board. So the challenges that we are facing are compounded but a world that is facing many interconnected crises, hunger, health, biodiversity, climate, land and water, forests, oceans and Mondays, amplified by increasing inequalities between within countries and growing geopolitical frictions and war. One of the major things that I always refer when I look at my speeches is that I argue that today we still have a governance failure. Why? Because we still don't communicate in the way we should communicate and we still don't coordinate in the way we should coordinate. Every financial agency is doing things independently of the others and we are very restricted in resources. So we are duplicating efforts that shouldn't be duplicated and we are not looking carefully on how we can structure that better. That's why meeting our mandates require that we excel in all phases of our work and especially at this point I think it's essential to excel in governance. Why? Because our agri-food system transformation in both identifying and addressing key trade-offs between sectoral, local, regional, global, temporal dimensions and it is bound to be continuous and often somewhat messy. And the word trade-offs has been very challenging. It was very challenging in the food system summit two years ago. Now in the stock taking we are looking more at the trade-offs. It took a lot of time to explain what it means. Basically every decision that you make has a consequence and the consequence could be positive or negative. If we don't look at that negative or positive consequence we are losing a part of it and that is what systems is about. And governance plays a crucial role to try to understand those trade-offs. If we don't bring those trade-offs and try to understand that our objective function as FHO is to achieve SGE2 and SGE1. That's our role. But to achieve SGE2 I have different pathways that I can follow. And that will create different trade-offs and we need to minimize those especially when they are going to affect our natural resources and our environment because that will backfire to achieving SGE2. So understanding that mechanism and the dynamics part is essential and that will require significant work on institutional innovation across countries. We keep referring to the systems approach but you don't have a system approach at the governance levels of countries and that's where we can do a lot more. So we must support our members where they are and know where they will wish them to be. Policy and technical recommendations should be informed by the data and analysis available but also fit to local circumstances knowing the circumstances and capabilities vary greatly and that the same policies may work well in one set of circumstances and poorly in another. Effective governance requires awareness that differences exist everywhere and that negotiation amongst different communities and actors with distinct perceptions, interests, resources and power is essential to getting the job of governance done. But we are not passive in the face of these challenges. We are committed to bringing FHO technical policy and governance capabilities to the frontiers of knowledge and to making our knowledge platform and tools available as global public goods to strengthen governance for agri-food system transformation everywhere they are needed. We are investing heavily and in many ways to enhance FHO ability to support a robot science and policy interface for all levels to exploit new technologies for analysis and to promote innovation and learning in the development of practical institutions. We believe that modeling can provide insights that help simplify complexity of agri-food system transformation but helping us to see more clearly the interactions across the systems and to recognize trade-offs as well as opportunities to exploit synergies. We have decided in FHO to build a modeling unit, a global modeling unit that will incorporate all the different models that we have at FHO and the reason we are doing that is because that will be a good instrument to help us to understand these synergies, externalities and trade-offs and to help us to better understand the system approach and to bring into it what are the necessary innovations in governance and institutions that are needed. The launch of the Focus on Governance is a key milestone in these efforts. The framework paper on Focus on Governance for more effective policy and technical support was prepared by the FHO governance team in consultation with colleagues from across the organization to create a common reference for FHO staff confronted by governance issues in a wide variety of contexts. By focusing on governance, we are looking at the way in which actors are enabled to participate in the decision-making processes and at how and how well the existing institutions support and sustain the capacity of effective and inclusive policy implementation. Are institutions fit for purpose? That's a very important question. Where are the weaknesses and what can be done to address them? Is there sufficient human capital to ensure successful implementation? If so, how do existing institutions work to achieve their intended purposes and if not, what needs to change? As you know, FHO has a strategic framework that is driven by the four betters, better production, better nutrition, better environment and better life. But something that normally we miss is that FHO also has accelerators. We have accelerators on data, innovations, science and innovation, but also on compliments and governance is at the core of that. It's governance, institutions and human capital. Those are the elements that we believe will help to accelerate the four betters to achieve what we want. So all these questions are important and are something that the focus on governance is trying to bring up a framework to achieve it. And in short, is itself a product of collective action that unfolds over several years. So we have to keep working on this and we believe and I believe that if we keep accelerating in the way we operate in governance in FHO, we can really resolve this problem of governance failure that we have today in my humble understanding. So our hope is that the increased use of governance analysis in FHO's work will stimulate iterative collective learning, processes enable the organization to improve the effectiveness of its policy and technical support to members to achieve better nutrition, better production, better environment and better lives living no one behind. So I thank you so much for being here today and for the people which are connected online. And I really hope we can move this framework and accelerate the process so that we can resolve the big challenge that I mentioned at the beginning. Thank you. Thank you very much, Maximo, for highlighting the centrality of governance for achieving the four betters and also for pointing to the need to analyze trade-offs and the role that evidence-based governance has in the implementation of policies and programs. It's now my pleasure to turn over to my colleague, my colleague Tupravka Bojic, the program officer in the Governance and Policy Unit. She will give us some insights into the content of the framework itself. Tupravka, the floor is yours. Thank you, Gunther. Sorry. Good morning, colleagues here in the room and those who are listening to us from somewhere else around the world. Let me, and thank you for being here with us for this event. Let me start by this picture of these frescoes by Ambroggio Lorenzetti, which I think most of you, if not all, know very well. And it was done in 1338-39 by the Commission of the Council of Nine who at the time were governed the city of Siena to guide them, the city council, in their decisions. And what we see in this, only this small part of the whole frescoes is how the author wanted to underline the importance of balancing between rural and urban, between public and private, getting all people involved and also finding synergies between agriculture, labour, trade, health, peace and security. Down the centuries, I think we will all agree that all these values remain valid today and perhaps even more so in the difficulties and uncertain times that we are facing today. As Maximo mentioned, achieving the SDGs Agenda 2030 and the Global FAO goals really requires to change the way we produce, process, distribute and dispose of food and agricultural products in a way that really preserves the natural resources we have and ensures equality and livelihoods for all leaving no one behind. We know what needs to be done, but the challenge is how? The challenge is how do we make people to cooperate? How do we bring together different sectors? How do we address different interests, different dimensions? How do we balance those trade-offs between economic, environmental and social objectives? In other words, how do we deal with governance with different political, socio-economic and organizational realities at different levels? As mentioned around 10 years ago, we started working on a simple pragmatic approach to governance that will allow us really to understand this context, those realities that will allow us to understand what the reality is and why it is so. As mentioned, let me also once again mention Klaus Urban, who was really the person who invested so much effort, energy and passion into this work and to whom we dedicated this publication. What we came up with is really a simple framework for analyzing governance that can allow us to have a common language across the organization when we talk about different aspects of food and agricultural problems, which can facilitate us to focus our attention and to understand whether we are sufficiently comprehensive in asking different kinds of questions that need to be asked. So the frame, the analysis actually is structured into four phases that are presented and summarized in this figure. The four phases are divided just for the conceptual presentation, but they are strongly interconnected and the whole process is really flexible and iterative and participation and engagement of different actors is crucial because it allows really to pull together different knowledge and competencies, but also and above all to build ownership of the whole process and of the findings of the analysis and hence increased chances for the application of the final result, which may be a priorities and strategies for change. And transformation. So the first step is problem framing. Those who are familiar and who work on governance tend to agree that governance is very hard. It takes time, resources and efforts, but it pays back. There are no simple solutions to complex issues such as agri-food system transformation, water scarcity or poverty or climate change, but they are smart choices. And the problem framing actually allows us to break down the complexity of an issue and objective that they are dealing with, be it a healthy diet or sustainable management of water resources, as we will hear a little bit later on, to a key problem or a key question that needs to be addressed as a priority in the process of achieving that objective. The key actors, this phase actually allows the key actors to understand each other's positions, different perspectives and to agree to work together to address it, knowing where to start the action, how to trigger change and transformation and how to sequence action is really key. Good diagnostics does help make smart choices. In framing the problem, the use of geospatial socioeconomic and technical analysis is really the key. It is a milestone that will provide evidence for dialogue among key stakeholders and sectors. This analysis can be done at different levels, be it at the national level, as is the case in Indonesia, through a combination of modeling around key trade-offs in a way to achieve healthy diets and transform agri-food systems, or it may be at a more localized territorial level, like it was done through a water accounting and measuring of water efficiency and productivity in low valley of Mejerda, Indonesia. But it is not sufficient. As we all know, I think institutional bottlenecks are often at the root of poor food and agriculture outcomes. This is why it is important to look at the institutional drivers of key problems that we are facing. For example, if we are looking at the water scarcity question, it is not enough to know how much water there is, how efficiently we are using it. It is key, but it's not sufficient. We also need to know who are the people behind, who is using it, and how do people access water resources, how is this access governed, what are the rules, are they formal, are they informal, are they aligned and complementary, who is actually adopting and determining and formulating those rules and who is influencing whether they are applied in forest and respected. This is where political economy analysis comes in. The issue of power dynamics is very delicate. Many tools, there are many tools for doing political economy analysis and they all aim at understanding well how our decisions made and by whom and who has what influence. And because the greatest challenge is indeed to be able to build a coalition of actors who will actually lead and implement the change and to know who may resist or who may be the advocate of change. This is an iterative process and extremely important for being able to develop priorities for action in our last phase of the analysis and to build that coalition. So the findings of the three first phases will allow us to have a more realistic idea about what kind of interventions, what kind of policy choices may have a realistic chance to be actually not only technically valid but also politically feasible and actually implemented in practice. Obviously this is a long and iterative process. Governance never ends and problems are never fully solved and resolved. But the government's integrating governance analysis in FAO's work and also in the work of policy practitioners at different levels can help reducing complexity and contribute to solving the problems and building coalitions, building collaboration, coordination between different stakeholders and working better together collectively. For this it is also important to really share and collect experiences, lessons learned from governance work as we will be hearing today from our two guests from Indonesia and Tunisia about their experiences and their lessons on governance. We are currently also working on a number of other case studies from countries working on different kinds of different fields and we are also finalizing package and e-learning as well as an in-person or online training on governance for food and agriculture and I do hope that you will look for it, you will use it also in your work and you will find it useful. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Dubravka for leading us through the steps embedded in the governance framework. It's not only a tool, if you look at the full report and I would like to say this as an appetizer, if you look at the full report you will not only find the tool that takes you through these four steps but you will find a lot of insight in terms of how the governance concept has evolved over time and how it's applied across different sectors and situations. It's a very rich analysis, historical analysis also that you will find in the full report and I would like to draw your attention to this. But for this meeting now we would really like to focus not only what's in the report but also how this framework has started to be applied in different contexts and we have two speakers with us. One on the Zoom, Dr. Anang Nekroho from Indonesia. He's the director of food and agriculture in Indonesia's Ministry of Planning and he's also the national convener for the dialogues that were conducted under the food systems summit preparation and in the follow-up to it. Then we will also have here with us on the podium Mr. Abdelamit Netsha He's the director general at Inderim of Tunisia's general directorate for rural engineering and water development within the Ministry of Agriculture. These two examples are at different levels. The Indonesia example is a national example. It looks at governance across Indonesia's food systems. The example in Tunisia is a more local example that looks at the governance of water resources, a key resource in the Near East and in North Africa. So I got a signal that we will turn around and it's a pleasure now to turn over the word to Mr. Abdelamit Netsha director general of Tunisia's general directorate for rural engineering and water development. This presentation will be in French so if you would like to listen in French use the headset or use the interpretation on the Zoom channel. Thank you. First of all I would like to thank the FAO for the work they have done and also for the invitation. It's a great pleasure to be with you today to present the Tunisian experience in the matter of governance of a rare resource. It's water with climate change, with the successive years of security. The government is really the solution. To improve governance is the solution to guarantee an equitable, universal access to water and also to guarantee food security for the country. So as you all know, the policy in the matter of resource management has gone through three phases, three main phases. The first phase is just after independence until the 90s. It's the phase of mobilization and transfer. It's the creation of dams, which has allowed us to now reach a level of mobilization on the surface of 93%. The transfer of water from the northern extreme to the south of the country has allowed us today to guarantee the access to drinking water to all Tunisians despite the succession of the years of security. Now the water goes from the northern extreme to the south of the country through inter-connection. So from the 90s, it's the transition from supply management to demand management. Through four main axes, it's the implementation of the National Economy Program. It's the incitement to the citizens for the economy, the incitement to the farmers, the tariff policy, the implementation of a tariff policy that allows us to guarantee the minimum recovery of operating costs and maintenance costs, which allows the availability of funds granted by the state, and the transfer of management to active citizens through the creation and promotion of inter-collective associations, which is currently called the GDA. From 2011 to 2014, it's the direction of the GIR, the integration and the continuity through the national strategy of perincipation, the new tariff policy, the revision of the water supply and the reconstruction of the water supply, and the energy transition, as you all know, water is a great source of energy. So there is a program of energy transition through renewable energies, and also water accountability. So the vision also in 2050, which has just come to be achieved now, to have a holistic vision of the sector. History, what is historic, what is interesting in this matter, is that from 1896, we have the GDA associations, and in 1920, we have the first legal framework of the GDA associations. Just after independence, it is the state that has learned by hand the management of water through the creation of 13 offices, and which have been under the end of the 1980s. After that, it was the strategy of mobilization and the transfer of management for a better participation of the beneficiaries themselves, an appropriation of investments and infrastructures in order to guarantee the viability of investments and also to prevent having a sustainable management of this rare resource. In 1975, we had the Code of Water, and it created the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture in managing the protection of hydric resources, the creation of the National Water Council, and the groups of hydropower in the regional level. These are consultative organizations in the regional level. The current institutional framework is a bit, as you can see, a bit complicated, which requires a lot of effort to have a coordination through the different ministers. We have the national level, the Ministry of Agriculture, it is mobilization, it is protection, it is management, it is exploitation. The Ministry of Health is health control, quality control. The Ministry of Equipment is urban water management. The Ministry of Environment is the protection of the public domain that is linked to the police. The Ministry of Energy is all that is energy for the system. As I have just said, it is the transfer, it is the pumping station, and now it is the energy transition. We also have the regional level, it is the districts. All the ministers at the national level are represented at the regional level by decentralized entities, the regional direction, whether it is agriculture, whether it is the national level, the state level, the national level, and the local level, it is the users in the middle, that this group is associated with the GDA. There are also the representatives of the CERDA at the local level, the CERA and the CTV at the delegations level. This institutional framework requires a lot of effort to have a horizontal coordination between the different sectors, water, energy, agriculture, energy, the environment, the industry, and a transversal coordination between the different levels, the local level, the regional level and the central level. A great effort is being made to coordinate all these actors in order to guarantee the sustainability of the resource and an equitable and universal access to all the Tunisian citizens on the same level as the potable and the potable services, and at the same time, we must see the food security side through the irrigated agriculture. As our colleague just mentioned, this is the work done by the FAO team on the analysis of the actors. We can see very well that the Ministry of Agriculture with the different services is part of it. It is the most concerned institution, which has the highest interest and which has more influence. On the contrary, there are the other ministers who have a medium-sized influence but a very high interest. There are also the farmers, citizens, civil society and the GDA who have a considerable interest in the management of this rare resource. The main issues of the sector are the three main issues. First of all, agriculture is equal to 76% of our resources. On the contrary, the level of valuation remains relatively low. If we cannot say that it is fairly low, we need a great effort at the level of value chain to improve the valuation of this resource and to give water to its economic value as long as this economic activity is also to guarantee the food security of the countries. Also, the energy transition. Now, the energy needs to be represented between 60% and 70% of the costs of operating and maintenance of the water system. So, we need a great effort to move towards renewable energy and to control the cost of energy to also guarantee the level of tariff that is acceptable and affordable by the human farmers. And the holistic vision, the integrated management vision. Now, we have done almost the same work with the 2050 vision which has regrouped all sectors, all programs and now we have a strategy in 2050 that will be validated very soon. The future. What to say about the future? The situation is as it is now. We aim to strengthen the coordination between sectors through mobilization, which has been done over the past three years to have the 2050 vision. The coordination mechanisms are the National Council, the CROP and also at the level of the new Côte d'Ézout, there will be a higher council of the Loup and regional council of the Loup in order to have this aggregate between the national, regional and local. The communication, the sharing of information, the implementation of a system of information on the Loup, which is the CINU, which is in progress. The implementation of a tariff policy allows us to guarantee the availability of management organisms for better valuation of the Loup. We have updated our tariff policy. Now it is in operation. The forecast is to have at least the balance, the little balance, that is to say the recovery of costs and the exploitation and maintenance of the managers until 2025. And also, without a clear tariff policy, there will be no valuation of the part of the farmers. There will also be no economy due because the tariff also incites the economy of the Loup and also incites a better valuation of the resource. The participation of the beneficiaries, as I have just said at the beginning, the participation of the former and the created in Tunisia is not new, but now we need more work for a better participation, a better appropriation of the part of the beneficiaries of investments in order to guarantee durability. There is no durability if the beneficiary or the manager himself does not appropriate this investment and this rare resource. The sustainable management of resources is the agro-ecological transition to guarantee or reinforce resilience in the face of climate change, as you all know. Currently, climate change has a very important impact on the activity of the Loup sector and on agricultural activities and on the resources we have. And this variability and these extreme phenomena between droughts and floods makes it necessary to also update our strategies, mainly our agricultural map, by adding a layer on the resource. That is to say now, we must have the resource, the beneficial resources, the soil and the climate, and also we must add the availability of resources to us in order to orient the production and also the footprint of each product. And all of this is a system that allows us to develop a more resilient agriculture in the face of climate change. Finally, it is the reinforcement of the structure for better protection of the DPH. All of this has been well mentioned in the old Code of Law, but the sanctions remain non-dissusive because the old Code of Law dates back to 1975. Now, with the reinforcement, there will be practically a creation of an agency of protection of the DPH that really has the mission of protecting the public domain and of the resources, of the eliciting, of the eliciting, of the sewage, and all kinds of vandalism and infraction. In addition, our new Code of Law, it will create the principle of universal access to water to all citizens and also the principle of polluter payers, taking into account also climate change and the mandatory reuse of sewage. We also have a tool now on the Arius 2050 that has the objective of reaching, until now we have an action plan to reach a level of reuse of 80% of our sewage. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much. Mr. Abdel Hamid Netsha for sharing with us some insights and features about the water sector in Tunisia for taking us through the history of water management, shifting from a supply approach to a demand approach to sustainable management for the journey towards the 2050 strategy and the governance analysis that underpinned that process. Thank you very much. We will have a bit of time later on after the next presentation to dive in a little bit deeper through the questions also from the audience that you may have. So if you have any questions in mind, keep them, sharpen them. We will get back to those. I would like to turn over to Indonesia and I would like to check if we have Dr. Anang Neukroho with us. Welcome, Mr. Dr. Neukroho. Anang. I hand over to you to share with us the experiences of applying a governance approach, governance analysis in the food systems work in Tunisia. The word is yours. Thank you very much indeed. First of all, it is really great and I'm personally very pleased to participate in the launch of this framework paper with the title of Focus on Governance for More Effective Policy and Technical Support. And I'm here with our Indonesian experience in shaping innovative governance mechanism to ensure the largest possible contribution and participation for our food system transformation in Ajinda within Indonesia. This transformation is pretty much quite a journey and I appreciate it and pleased to have FAO to guard and to accompany this process for the transformation of our national food system in Indonesia being more healthy, sustainable and inclusive. And I can share with you and inform you that FAO has provided extensive technical assistance through the closely coordinated efforts and partners and facilitated the national dialogues as well as the sub-national dialogues and giving encouragement and contribution, positive contribution for the development and consolidation of our Indonesia strategic pathway for food system transformation. I will present on a few slides the national where we come from and what we are aiming to realize our vision as I mentioned previously more sustainable, inclusive and equitable food systems to drive at scale progress across our development priorities and benefiting the number of people particularly for our women and especially for the largest of the demographic segment it is a young generation across province and districts within our archipelago. Indonesia has strongly committed on this part to fostering again inclusive, healthy, resilient and sustainable food system with the food system legislative we are having a food law back in 2012 we are also just a very new baby born national food agency we are setting in place on the last year and with the Bapenas our institution doing as the lead agency for this process and as well as of course with the close collaboration with other national institution particularly Minister of Agriculture our country capitalized on the momentum created through the last year UN Food Systems Summit to further engage with the civil society organization academia, private sectors small farmers group young generation women and local communities to map together the priorities identify possible solutions and in the last year we are fortunately and successfully translated into the more identified priorities into the concrete action on the ground on the slide 2 with the title of the transformation agri-food sector toward healthy inclusive, sustainable, resilient food system yeah thank you very much sorry slide 3 yeah we can see here that I can share that our focus on the productivity and export activities come into account is essential when aiming to contribute to poverty reduction of course boosting the rural economy by prioritizing this excuse me file 2 slide 2 yeah the previous slide 2 yeah thank you thank you very much and sustainable agriculture prediction on this program is a quite critical factor when aiming to improve the environmental sustainability and as well as the land productivity and our resilience then by adopting this practices within the agricultural systems and I can share with you that this year we are starting to develop the support for the sub-national on the implementing regenerative agriculture and address the challenges with the impact by climate change and protect natural resources and ensure the long-term capability for our food production we are striving for the environmental sustainability and resilience our underlying goal is to improve of human life through ensuring access to healthy and nutritious food for all by promoting sustainable agriculture we can address of course food security improve nutrition and health reduce environmental health risk preserve ecosystem build climate change resilience and generate social and economic benefits these efforts contribute to creating a sustainable and equitable feature where everyone can thrive and enjoy better quality of life next our slide 3 is a 5 priorities for our food system transformation first is ensuring the food security while at the same time we are improving the quality of diets diversify our diet and of course we are pretty much serious giving attention for our coastal and ocean based food sources as we do recognize that our country is the largest archipelagic so the consideration of developing we call it as a blue food program is under the national program at this moment and the second we are maintaining to preserve and rehabilitating our natural resources and we are promoting the inclusive business practices as well as we are promoting the important of developing capacity on the local food system and to ensure enhancing our priority in inclusive governance on the next slide they are key milestone for our food system transformation we are putting the planning horizon until 2045 20 years from now with the tagline is our vision with the Golden Indonesia vision and these are the at this moment we are currently doing and work to exercise on this milestone and for the next slide on the governance innovation I think this is the important part of our discussion today is the implementation of the governance innovation has played a crucial role and we are starting with the promoting we call it as a inclusive planning and we done last year with the multi-stakeholder process and this covering on the six regions and inviting and attending by close to 2,000 participants we call it is this is the first effort we are doing on the multi-stakeholder process like this especially on the food sector and we are also inviting the potential of the developing the policy research and financing innovation and I can share with you that we've been already starting on the 2022 and also continuing 2000 this year that we are developing what we call it as a fiscal transfer to support food systems transformation we've been already mobilizing our national resources from the budget covering almost 288 regions around the country with the budget close to the 1.5 billion and we are hoping that this in the next coming years we are having quite significant and making a more stronger local capacity to deal with the more diversified food come up with the as well as the promotion of their local food and on the continuation of this process we are also developing what we call it as food system modeling this modeling is consist of the analyzing the current performance of the community and the possible trajectory of our Indonesian food system including because we are developing what we call it as a food asset map that this map exposing the profile of the integration between the location among the food infrastructure food production basis and other relevant items within the one single geospatial geospatial techniques and the next slide thank you very much indeed and we are keeping strong to make cooperation with all of you with the more food transformation toward more sustainable healthy and inclusive thank you very much again thank you thank you for sharing with us the objectives that you pursue in the context of the food systems transformation in Indonesia and also for giving first glance at what you call governance innovation and the interesting aspect of using food systems modeling to get a better handle of synergies and tradeoffs that you face in the journeys that you undertake with your food systems so I'm sure there will be further questions on that so we have heard two presentations one zooming into the second one focusing on food systems transformation in Indonesia now we have a bit of time for any questions that you may have to the presenters or to the framework or to the general direction in which governance work goes in the organization so I would just give a moment to pause and then I look for the hands or for your contributions in the chat on the Zoom platform for the chat I will ask my colleagues to monitor and draw out some of the pertinent questions and for the room here I look for the first sign of a hand up so let me ask you to both of you because I think this would be very relevant on one side in the case of Tunisia and the water issues and the water stress issues that we are going to face and they are handling the case of Indonesia where you are also using modeling to understand the pathways how difficult you see and in Tunisia you have been working on this the institutional change that you need to have in the country to bring the system so how you are going to interlink the different ministries so that this will effectively work because I have seen several changes in different countries of creating a coordination agency for example across ministers or creating a super powerful minister to control several sectors but if the finance and financial part is not there normally it fails to work so you are bringing together also the financing into this process so that the proper incentives are there and both to Indonesia and to Tunisia thank you thank you Maximo for this question shall we collect another one or two yes please there will be a mic coming to you Mr. Torero broke the ice so thank you good morning I really think it is an excellent effort and I really share the need to improve the governance approaches within the corporate works or the work of the entire organization so thank you for this my question would be for Mr. Menagia related to one of the objectives that I have seen in his presentation refers to need to include final beneficiaries and farmers more and more in the management of water resources so my question is we know that transferring management responsibilities in irrigation and water management entails additional benefits for farmer but at the same time it also requires more capacities more financial efforts by farmers if you have already designed the governance system that you are thinking to apply and how are you thinking to address the different trade-offs that would come from the transferring of management responsibilities at lower level thank you thank you for this question is there any third question yes I will take a third and then we will do another round of presentations I am from the forestry division and I wonder in the case of both Indonesia and Tunisia how you have dealt with the power structures whenever we introduce a coordination structure and especially if it is a strong coordination unit we need to deal with the power dimension and we also need to deal with the fact that we are in democracy so how we make sure that these coordination structures and their positioning in the power dynamics that they can survive so what are the mechanisms that you have put in place for the sustainability the political sustainability of these coordination structures thank you thank you very much for these questions I will now turn it over to our two guests first to Mr. Abdelhamid thank you for these questions so the first question concerning the coordination and the coordination process primarily the coordination in our vision it does not need specific financing it also needs a will it is the will we have the creation of the We don't need a lot of investment, but we need to set up the rules only. The things that have been planned in the new Côte d'Izout in my opinion will help us to better coordinate the structures, that is, at the national level and also at the regional level. Regarding the participation of local or used actors, mainly it is the social management of the water, the experience in Tunisia has shown results and some failures and we know the reasons for this failure. So if there will be an effective participation of the beneficiaries, we all agree that there will be no sustainability of investment. Participation needs to be taken into account by investment through the coverage at least of the maintenance and operating costs. This is the minimum. And it will also allow the judges to express themselves and to have a local democracy that allows them to defend their interests in the opinion of the administration. This is what has been done and currently 90% of our public and legal parameters are managed by associations. All the rural water systems are almost 43.5% of the desert water is insured by water associations. And it is thanks to this strategy that we have been able to achieve this satisfaction rate of citizens in water. If we keep crossing our arms and waiting for a public organization to reach these people, it is impossible to achieve them. And that is why we have satisfied these conditions by sharing responsibilities between the state and the citizens. The state will support all investments. It does it, but with the participation of local actors in the concept and management of the system. That is to say, citizens do not participate in investments but they participate in management and exploitation. It is a sharing, it is a change of role between the state and the citizens. We do not want citizens to cross their arms like that without any participation and waiting for the state to do something for them. We want really active citizens, participants and responsible. And that is the good sense of the situation. The future is certain that everywhere in the world and I am sure that, for example, in the field of water where I was responsible, it is little by little that all the systems will be transferred to the SONED. But currently, as long as we do not have the means, the SONED does not have the means to take them, it is the citizens who can take them in charge. But it is a transitory stage until everyone is serviced by the public utility. But currently, everyone is satisfied and have access to quality and quality 24 out of 24, 7 days out of 7 days. We currently have a total of 95% of desert water and the same thing, we want to set up action in terms of non-collective assignement in order to protect our environment. To transfer the power structures, as I told you, it is not always necessary to create a structure. Creating a structure is more complexity and more problem, in my opinion. Minimizing the structures, I have to find instances or frames, a frame of coordination, such as the National Water Council, the National Water Council, the National Water Council, which will allow to coordinate the actions between the different stakeholders. I hope that I answered your questions well. Thank you very much for this response, because for this reflection, of course, there will be much more depth that we can explore also then after the meeting in bilateral conversations. And for that, we will have some refreshments outside to continue that dialogue with the people that are here in the room. One thing that resonated with me is how critical it is to change the roles of different actors in the transformation, in the transformation process, which is a really important aspect that you highlighted. Let's also turn now to Bakanan in Indonesia to give us his take on the questions that were asked in terms of what it takes to implement institutional change, to look at the role of beneficiaries and to look at power structures. So your brief reflection will be very welcome. Bakanan, over to you. Well, Indonesia maybe is a bit unique of what we are trying to implement, what we call it as coordination. Yes, I do recognize that coordination is sometimes quite easy to spell out, but in reality, it's really difficult to implement. But in Indonesia, our ministry, we call it as a ministry of development planning or PAPENAS. We have a mandate within this executive director that executive order that we can function to develop with the terminology intersectoral and international and subnational coordination. Having said to have this regulatory framework under the executive order, then we are used to conduct our coordination with the line ministries as well as national and subnational together on the specified issues, like the example for the food system transformation. On this part, we are having what we call it as a five-year development plan and the food sector in there, there are 26 indicators within the food sectors and one of the indicator until the 2024 is we would like to have 100% of having the sustainable agriculture land for every province and for every district. So based on this target and indicator, then we are applying this criteria with the incentive and disincentive for almost 500 districts. And then we are evaluating on the several assessment and we come up 288 out of 500 districts that could get the support from the national budget as a part of the or through the fiscal transfer mechanism what we call it as a special fund to support food systems or transformation. So those criteria consist of the integration along the chain on the food system perspective. We are integrating where is the production based on the agriculture or the farming system and we are also integrating with the irrigation and road associated with this area and those are we are giving criteria and discuss throughout the country as of course discuss technically and making verification and through the geospatial indicator then afterwards we come up with this process. So I think the important part of this we learn that the whatever the topics if we could put it into the fiscal or the financing activities with the more clarification and clarity of the criteria I think this is one of the important that we can learn from this process. Thank you. Thank you very much for this response. I think what it clearly highlighted while when yesterday I got a small briefing on the Indonesia food systems work it was presented as a national effort. What you highlighted here is the importance of localizing the agenda and bringing it down to every district and to look at the governance aspects that are inherently in that process of localizing what started as a global agenda. Really interesting. Now I'm looking at the time and I see I will not be able to go back to the room but there is an opportunity for informal conversation. I would like to do the following for the closing of the meeting. A couple of steps. First I would like to go to my colleague Stanio and just give us a flare of what's in the chat what came through there. We may not be able to answer the questions but we would like to just take stock of what kind of questions came up in the Zoom and then I will go back to each of the panelists and ask for one or two sentences of what's important to do next to live up to the expectation to consider governance aspects in our work at the different levels just two sentences and then I will turn it over to Michael Clark who will give us the closing. What do we have in the chat? Just a quick reflection of what's in there so that the panelists can reflect that maybe in their final few sentences. Anais. Most of the questions concerned the engagement of key stakeholders within policy dialogues and the existence of guidance or tools to engage key stakeholders into policy dialogues. We also had questions for Pakenang concerning the forest and the multistakeable approach. Sorry. Does it include links to agroforestry and carbon farming within the context of Indonesia? And finally, how do you include into this innovative structure, governance innovation, the political pressures of war migrations and all this social context? And I think this is all for the discussion in the Q&A. Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. So let me now turn back to our speakers. I first go to Indonesia and ask what is the most important thing to do next to consider governance in the upcoming work? What is the most important thing to do next? And then I will continue that round to that question. Pakenang. Yeah. What do you see as the most important next step? Well, yeah. Well, for the food transformation, excuse me. For the food transformation, you mean? Yes. In terms of considering governance challenges in the transformation process, what is your deepest concern? What would you like to do next to address in that process? Well, I think the most challenging what we are facing now is how we are elaborating the participation dealing with this issue, food system transformation. And then at this moment, we are developing what we call it as a multistakeholder platform that consists of, it is a communication platform and we are inviting the academia and also the professionals that have interested within our national pet me. So it is a process of the consultation and still in the process, but it is quite important to enrich the transformation itself. And the second thing I can share with you that at this moment, we are developing what we call it as a sustainable jurisdiction indicator. It is a kind of the improvement for the next terms of how we are allocating or mobilizing resources on the basis of the jurisdiction sustainability governance. So, but again, this is very new. And yeah, we would like we are happy to share further on another session. Thank you. Thank you very much. So three really important points how to enhance participation, how to make multistakeholder platforms work and how to use sustainability indicators in terms of fostering good governance. I now turn to Abdel Amit. What is your biggest challenge and what comes next in Tunisia? Well, thank you. So, concerning the current challenges, as you have seen, it is a change of paradigms now. We are now in a big field to change the current paradigms. It is the passage of a governance system that takes into account real, beneficial needs in order to guarantee the durability of resources and at the same time, food security. This requires a functioning of different bodies and actors, that is, the coordination bodies, the advice at the local level, at the regional level, the associations, the participation of the civil society in collaboration with the public in order to guarantee the reliability of our resources. Thank you. Thank you very much. You mentioned paradigm shift. You mentioned participation. You mentioned sustainability. A huge agenda, probably a common agenda. I think that listening to the two guests in the room, I think the agendas are comparable and it really calls for an exchange of insights and lessons across contexts. I turn now to Brafka and Maximo to see if they would like to intervene and also see what they see as a key challenge on the path to the next steps. Thank you, Gunther. I would like to thank you to our two guests from Tunisia and from Indonesia, Mr. Naja and Pak Canang for sharing with us your insights today and what you shared in terms of the main challenges, really the participation making multi-stakeholder platforms work. This is really what we hear from many other countries. We all agree how important it is to coordinate, to bring different perspectives together, to address trade-offs, but we are still in the search of finding the right way on how to do it. But I think what we heard today and what, in my view, other countries also share, it's really the courage to admit, to recognize that this difficulty is there and to engage really altogether, collectively, have this collective commitment and collective action to address the difficulties that we are facing and really work together. And obviously, let me just say that we are here to continue the support and we look forward to further sharing of experiences. Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you so much. As all of you know, on the 24th of July is the stop-taking of the food system summit we are supposed to work with countries in the transformation pathways. I think the framework has to be there working with the countries to follow the forest steps. So we know the problem that in most of the countries we don't know yet the institutional assessment of where the gaps will be institutionally and I think your two countries have shown significant progress and we have to work on the political economy and the priorities for action. So my view will be to intensively interact during those two days that will happen here in Rome to try to create the linkages with the countries so that we can accelerate this process and we can help to move forward the transformation of the agri-food systems but with this lens of governance which will be central if not I don't see the agri-food system transformation to be able to happen in a sustainable way. So it's very important to bring this up and to move forward on this. Thank you. Thank you, Maximo. And now it's my pleasure to turn over the floor to Michael Clark who until recently was leading the policy and governance in FAO and who was instrumental in elaborating this framework. He will do the closing for us. For those in the room here I would like to ask for your patience and I would like to ask to stay with us and also to take advantage of the team that is here in the room to continue the conversation in an informal way after we hear the closing remarks from Michael Clark. Michael, over to you. Thank you. And thank you to the panelists and to the many people who posed questions today. We've come a long way been working on putting this framework together for 10 years and so I really want to thank all the people including those like Klaus who are no longer with us and really is this was the driving spirit behind this but I also see with us today Frederick DeVay Mark Hufty Pilar Santa Coloma Dometi Baye Taiz Juinal Aziz Aria there may be others that I don't see and there are certainly many others who have contributed some of whom have retired as with me in this period but it was really important for us that our approach to governance really be something that could be used by everyone working in the organization when governance was initially included as part of FAO's explicit work in the previous strategic framework wasn't really a lot of clarity about what the intention was or the mission at one point the director general then Dr. Graziano made the comment that the work of governance of FAO is to support governance at country level at sub regional sub national levels to support work at the global level and even although we tread very lightly here to provide insights and advice on the governance of FAO itself and I would regard things like the participation of the governance team in the management of the hand in hand initiative as really reflecting the strong role of the hand in hand initiative in redesigning the way FAO as an institution engages with its members to support their national planning and efforts and that leads me to a general point I want to make because several speakers have alluded to the fact that governance can be a very sensitive issue we do not govern as FAO we are an institution we are a facilitator as in everything else we do we try to bring the best technical analysis we can bring but we realize that there is a line that we don't cross that the responsibility and choice of policy frameworks choice of instruments choice of agenda is the national responsibility or the sub national but we have spoken today in several ways about the increasing complexity of the challenges that have been set for governance particularly the need to work across domains and disciplines and I think one lesson that I hope is been clear today about what we are trying to do with our framework is to yes acknowledge this complexity but try to simplify the process I think the biggest danger we have is that we can over complicate complexity is built in it is there but we should not amplify complexity by creating numerous structures with cross shared responsibilities and cross cutting responsibility this does not lead to results it leads to paralysis most often I say this as a political scientist one of the few political scientists working at FAO and I say it not about just experience at FAO but everywhere I have worked in different countries and of course in the United States itself my home country so a key subliminal message here is simplify and that's why we emphasize so much the need early on to engage the stakeholders to get a handle on what is the problem we are going to solve it does not help to just make lists and then get everybody's desiderata put on a single list we can't solve all the problems everywhere all at once and it's up to national authorities working with national constituencies to prioritize and to recognize that the work of agri-food systems transformation is a work of years and it is a work that will touch everyone in profound ways and so we should start with a clear idea of what is the driver here what is it that we as a national community and a territorial community feel that can be what we come together around this is the first part of the problem that we want to solve and then we do the other steps go through as Maximo just said the institutional analysis which is advancing quite well but also look to the fit what we call the political economy questions between the policy objectives and the instruments we want to use and the actual capacities of the different actors the power resources they have the ability to work together the capabilities and they're going to be institutional gaps that's going to be a problem everywhere because we're facing a new set of problems and governments were designed to divide manageable pieces now we're saying it won't work to solve these problems except by working across those so we're going to make the most progress we think where we find simplifying structures or where we can use new technologies and modeling for example to help us be more precise about where the pain problems are going to be to try to put numbers to those problems okay among these problems which is going to affect the most people how is it going to affect them and what are our options for dealing with that so we begin or we end one phase which was a very long beginning and we have not been terribly specific about how to do each of these steps there are many many tools for managing multi-stakeholder processes we all have to get better at those there are many many tools for institutional analysis for institutional mechanism design and so many other things we didn't want to impose any single set of instructions for that there are many ways to do political economy analysis in a way that is constructive and allows us to be creative in dealing with power gaps with capability gaps with institutional gaps and there are many tools for reality testing are findings are technical findings to running cost benefit analysis let everyone know what are the tradeoffs here where do we need to invest in innovation to address those tradeoffs where are we going to have to live tradeoffs in the short run where are the opportunities to capture synergies we've said this over and over again it's very important part of the mix and then finally you have a strategy but as Dubrovka said governance never ends we're going to try to solve the big problems first the biggest we can see them or we may have in some cases to solve some of the smaller problems to build momentum that's going to be a local decision implementation is a word we often are using now governance is all about implementation it's about who is going to do what it's about building the consensus and it's also as Maximo said many times today it's all about also about finance we're aiming at transformation transformation doesn't happen without significant investment of all public investment but that investment is going to have to really be catalytic and drive investment from the private side this is all new territory as well for particularly FAO but this is where we need to go and we need to do it in a different way a way that's more transparent that's more closely linked to major objectives that emerge through the processes we've been talking about the multi-stakeholder participatory the transparent processes and that is internally coherent and consistent which has been and remains a big challenge so what we have done is not solved anybody's problem but hopefully we've provided a framework that can allow for consistent discussion across problem sets and issues comparing different experiences and we understand each other when we're talking about an institutional aspect or a political economy aspect of a problem we understand how the tools can help we will come to understand how different tools can help illuminate different aspects of problems that there is an enormous scope for analytical advancement and also for practical advancement in understanding how to tackle these very very complicated problems that we must solve to get the world that we want. Thank you very much to everyone today and everyone who has participated in the past your reward for that is to be invited to continue working on these problems. Thank you very very much. Thank you very much Michael we close the meeting at this point there will be more coming there will also be more material coming that will help to translate this into practical applications please stay tuned look at the website but for now please those in the room join us for short refreshments and further exchange and those on the platform thank you very much for your participation.