Food for Earth

FOOD FOR EARTH a toolbox to unleash the regenerative power of food: energy for life adopting a prosperity-driven and life-centered approach

©FutureFoodInstitute.org_DRAFT_REV15/01/2020

| Sara Roversi | Claudia Laricchia | Mariarosaria Lombardi |

“We are living in a post-industrial and globalized society, where the digital revolution is taking more and more control over our lives.

Because of it, we are able to learn and acknowledge the importance of a good diet and it helps us connect with food, with who produces it, who distributes it and who transforms it.

Food is life. energy and nourishment. It is the vehicle of values, culture, symbols, and identity, food is sociality.

Eating is an essential activity for human beings, but it requires consciousness and awareness.

By analyzing food from both the viewpoints of culture and accessibility, we have begun to map the places where this revolution is taking place and studying its dynamics, both to grasp the opportunities and to help our partners to seize them and create new niches of fruition and consumption that use the potential of technology and new knowledge generated by data, nudging’ towards positive change.

This is the reason why we’ve created Future Food, an ecosystem composed of a philanthropic soul that wants to create new models and culture by strengthening research projects, promoting training programs, spreading knowledge, and an entrepreneurial spirit that, on the basis of acquired knowledge, feeds innovative projects capable of generating concrete impact on the health of humans and the planet.

The great challenge of our era is to succeed in protecting our planet, by feeding humans in a healthy way and by taking care of the ecosystem that is hosting us.

Humanity will be able to adapt to the great changes we are experiencing only by putting humans back in the center. “

Sara Roversi Founder of The Future Food Institute

AUTHORS

Sara Roversi, Founder Future Food Institute sara.roversi@futurefoodinstitute.org Claudia Laricchia, Head of institutional relations at Future Food Institute claudia.laricchia@futurefoodinstitute.org Mariarosaria Lombardi, Università degli Studi di Foggia mariarosaria.lombardi@unifg.it

FUTURE FOOD RESEARCH TEAM

Matteo Vignoli, Chiara Cecchini, Chhavi Jatwani, Francesco Castellana, Murray Elphic, Simona Grande.

We gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the support received through the collaborative work undertaken with FAO [The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations], UNIDO Itpo Italy [The United Nations Industrial Development Organization’s Investment and Technology Promotion Office in Italy], Antonio Parenti Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations; Roberto Reali and Rita Baraldi DISBA CNR [Dipartimento di Scienze Bio-Agroalimentari del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], Marco Alberti and Luca Meini Enel; Nicola Tagliafierro, Enel X; Stefano Vittucci EY; Leonardo Mendolicchio, Food for Mind, Peter Klosse TASTE - The Academy for Scientific Taste Evaluation

INDEX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GLOBAL FRAMEWORK 1.1 Humankind challenges 1.2 Sustainable development goals (SDGs) AGRO-FOOD SYSTEM ROLE 2.1 Responsible for climate change 2.2. Driver for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies SDGs AND AGRO-FOOD SYSTEM 3.1 Planet, people, prosperity FUTURE FOOD INSTITUTE 4.1 Vision “FOOD FOR EARTH” THE EARTH REGENERATION TOOLBOX 5.1 Approach 5.2 Tools 5.3 Innovation areas 5.3.1 Climate smart ecosystems 5.3.2 Circular living 5.3.3 Food identity 5.3.4 Food diplomacy 5.3.5 Prosperity 5.4 SDGs and innovation areas CONCLUSIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The climate change is no longer an intangible concern since its impacts are being felt worldwide. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) gives humanity 10 years to keep the raising of global warming under 1.5 °C. (IPCC, 2018) as well as thousand of scientific references highlighted the seriousness of pursuing “business as usual” models because they will have impact on the unprecedented environmental catastrophe.

Right now, climate change is affecting millions of people, thwarting their efforts to escape poverty (Munang et al., 2003) and forcing to move away from their land to continue to survive. Moreover, the high population growth aggravates this situation as it increases the demand for essential resources: water, energy, medicine, materials, and above all food, contributing to generate much more concerns (de Amorim, et al., 2019).

Even if the whole agro-food system (agriculture and land use, storage, transport, packaging, processing, retail, and consumption) contributes between 25-30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 2019a; Poore and Nemecek, 2018), it has great potential to offer emissions efficiency gains, absolute reductions and carbon sinks, while supporting resilience-building and socioeconomic development (FAO, 2018). It represents, indeed, a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. In the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, its environmental effects could increase by 50–90% (Springmann et al., 2018). Thus, it is necessary to uptake innovative technology, practices, and farming systems for meeting global greenhouse gas mitigation and targets and simultaneity for allowing a sustainable increase of food production (Smith and Lampkin, 2019). In this context, in 2015, United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda, which set out a 15-year plan to achieve 17 different Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs and their relative 169 targets). The aim is at “ending poverty, protecting the planet and ensuring prosperity for all” (UN, 2015), providing a holistic and multidimensional view on development (Pradhan et al., 2017). At the core of the 2020-2030 decade is the need for action to tackle growing inequalities, empower women and girls, and address the climate emergency. Despite the initial efforts, the world is not on track for achieving most of the 169 targets. The main concern is the fact that recent trends along several dimensions with cross-cutting impacts across the entire 2030 Agenda are not even moving in the right direction. Four in particular fall into that category: rising inequalities, climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing amounts of waste from human activity that are overwhelming capacities to process them (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2019).

According to the previous premises, it is necessary to think and approach differently, searching for a key element, transversal to the whole SDGs, able to create interactions and to limit the cross-cutting impacts.

The food systems and agriculture are surely transversal to the whole SDGs framework, specifically for food security and nutritional diversity, cultural diversity, ecological long-term stability, and climatesmart systems. Speaking about SDGs means speaking about food and agriculture. Speaking about food and agriculture means scaling up SDGs as eating is an essential act of human being but it requires consciousness and awareness.

According to this vision, the Future Food Institute developed an open source tool in order to model the climate crisis and regenerate the Planet, starting from food: the “Food for Earth” - The Earth Regeneration Toolbox. Specifically, this instrument is addressed to policymakers, food authorities, food managers, local governments, urban planners, scholars and others who are seeking solutions to environmental problems that require behavioral change.

1. GLOBAL FRAMEWORK 1.1 The humankind challenges In 2015, after the end of the Kyoto Protocol and its failure in achieving the worldwide GHG reduction of 5.75% against 1990 levels in 2012, all nations decided to undertake another ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects subscribing the Paris Agreement. This sets an aspirational goal of limiting the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by end of this century and pursuing efforts to bound the increase to 1.5 °C already in the second half of this century (UNFCCC, 2015). In doing so, these countries, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also invited the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to provide a Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emissions pathways.

Thus, in 2018, the IPCC published “Global warming of 1.5 °C”, where it gives humanity 10 years to keep the raising of global warming under 1.5 °C: 91 authors; editors from +40 Countries; +6,000 scientific references cited for giving evidence of the impact of “business as usual” on the unprecedented environmental catastrophe we are facing. More extreme weather, rising sea levels, diminishing Arctic sea ice and long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of ecosystems are just some of the consequences of global warming caused by humans. As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC is the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (IPCC, 2018).

On August 8th, 2019, the IPCC approved and accepted another special report, titled “Climate change and Land”. This very clearly stated that we must change the food system to save the world because cutting carbon from transport and energy is “not enough.” Land provides the “food, feed, fiber, fuel, and freshwater” without which human society and its economy “could not exist”, the report says. This provision is under threat from rising global temperatures and “unprecedented” rates of land and freshwater exploitation in recent decades, the report warns. The IPCC has said that urgent change is needed to cut the risk of extreme heat, drought, floods, and poverty (IPCC, 2019b).

Right now, climate change is affecting millions of people, thwarting their efforts to escape poverty (Munang et al., 2003) and forcing to move away from their land to continue to survive. This last phenomenon, human migration, is not new but it has increasing above all in the world’s poorest countries, over the last decade, due to the effects of climate change: increase of sea-level rise, salinization of agricultural land, desertification and growing water scarcity, flooding, storms and glacial lake outburst floods. These issues contribute to reduce access to essential resources such as water, as well as affecting livelihoods, especially fishing and farming. Along with latter, non-climate drivers, such as government policy, population growth and community-level resilience to natural disaster, are also important causes of this problem (Brown O., 2008). These impacts, either in isolation or combined, may result in conflict, again displacing people (Science for Environment Policy, 2015) (Simonelli, 2019).

Moreover, the high population growth aggravates this situation as it increases the demand for essential resources: water, energy, medicine, materials, and above all food, contributing to generate much more concerns (de Amorim, et al., 2019). This is confirmed by FAO

which stated “The world’s population is expected to grow to almost 10 billion by 2050, boosting agricultural demand – in a scenario of modest economic growth – by some 50 percent compared to 2013” (FAO, 2017). This means both an increase of food production and of urbanization.

As known, the urban areas are main responsible of high levels of energy consumption, releasing into the atmosphere, every year, about 80% of GHG emissions, of which 70% is CO2 (Lombardi et al., 2016; Kona et al., 2018).

Thus, they cause the depletion of natural resources and a significant environmental impact due to the combustion of fossil fuels for heating houses or commercial/administration activities, for producing electricity, and for the public and private transport of people and goods (Lombardi et al., 2017). Indeed, the form of electricity, heat, transport or industrial processes, account for the majority – 76% – of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world (Ritchie, 2019). Surely, cities can play a key role in developing and implementing climate change programs because they are located at the interface of local action and national and international level climate change adaptation and mitigation commitments starting form ‘clean energy’ solutions: the deployment of renewable or nuclear energy; improvements in energy efficiency; or transition to low-carbon transport (Reckien et al., 2018; Ritchie, 2019).

The high population growth, migration, urbanization, the consequences of climate change and the emergence of new global risks are just a few challenges faced by us for our survival. Hence, it is necessary the creation of direct and persistent answers that assimilate the complexity and interdependence that exists in the current scenario. According to de Amorim et al. (2019) “To address the above said complex system, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Smart Cities emerge as possible solutions to promote fair and sustainable development”. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is very different from the previous three, since it is being foreseen, while all benefits that came from the others were perceived later. The concept “Industry 4.0″ was formulated in 2011 by the President of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, during the annual Davos meeting as a propose for the development of a new concept of German economic policy based on high-tech strategies powered by nine foundational technology advances: Big Data and Analytics, Autonomous Robots, Simulation, Horizontal and Vertical System Integration, Internet of Things, Cyber security and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), The Cloud, Additive Manufacturing and Augmented Reality. The goal is to remove planning, control and decision centralization in decisions regarding production and consumption, introducing the Internet of Things (IoT) concept in industrial application scenarios. CPS is a new class of engineered systems that offer coordination among physical and computational infrastructures and are the foundation for smart factories, and other smart systems such as smart buildings, security systems, data centers and medical systems. IoT is expected to change the urban development and future cities, similar to other engineered systems, above all for waste management framework for smart and sustainable cities (Esmaeilian et al., 2018).

Consequently, it will be crucial that, through a holistic vision, the integration of climate risk considerations into policy is accelerated as well as techniques, actions, social movements, and policy tools, that

interact with decision makers with the scientific community, industry and civil society, are developed for ensuring a sustainable development that is resilient to climate change (de Amorim, et al., 2019). Much depends on governments around the world having the will and energy to drive a no fossil fuel policy. They should be bold and brave enough to create a legacy for our children and our children’s children (Letcher, 2019). Munang et al. (2013) stressed that closer attention to a broader spectrum of adaptation options is urgently needed. In particular, Ecosystem-based Adaptation approaches have proved to provide flexible, cost effective and broadly applicable alternatives for reducing the impacts of climate change and as such are a critical tool at adaptation planners disposal for tackling the threats that climate change poses to peoples lives and livelihoods across the globe. for reducing the impacts of climate change and as such are a critical tool at adaptation planners disposal for tackling the threats that climate change poses to peoples lives and livelihoods across the globe.

1.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In this context, in 2015, the United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda, which set out a 15-year plan to achieve 17 different Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainable Development Goals are the solution we need to implement right now, in order to effectively use these remaining 10 years to tackle the climate crisis, as suggested by IPPC. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) tackle multiple challenges that humankind is facing to ensure well-being (ending poverty), economic prosperity, and environmental protection (UN, 2015) (Figure 1). In contrast to conventional development agendas focusing on a restricted set of dimensions, the SDGs provide a holistic and multidimensional view on development and on the simultaneous and integrated achievement of targets at the national, regional and global levels.

To implement the SDGs, policies need to take account of the interactions between the SDGs, because these may cause diverging results. Therefore, it is necessary to develop tools to identify them and evidence to show how particular interventions and policies help or hinder progress towards the goals. These tools should help policymakers to develop pathways that minimize negative interactions and enhance positive ones.

In this context, several studies have been recently published focusing on these interactions (Gil et al., 2019).

For instance, Pradhan, et al. (2017) analyzed the SDG interactions, using official SDG indicator data for 227 countries and systematizing the identification of synergies and trade-offs among them. Among SDGs the positive and negative correlations between indicator pairs allowed for the identification of particular global patterns. SDG 1 (No poverty) has a synergistic relationship with most of the other goals, whereas SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) is the goal most commonly associated with trade-offs. This is a noteworthy study because it shows how can be important to leverage the identified synergies among the goals in order to attain the SDG agenda. In addition, to overcome the highlighted trade-offs, which constitute obstacles in achieving the SDGs, it underlines the “need

to be negotiated and made structurally no obstructive by deeper changes in the current strategies to negotiate and make structurally no obstructive by deeper changes in the current strategies”.

Nilsson et al. (2016) provided another useful study in this direction. The authors highlighted that no one specified exactly how goals depend on each other and thus which are the interactions both negative and positive. If policymakers ignore the overlaps and just start trying to tick off targets one by one, they risk perverse results. For instance, “using coal to improve energy access (goal 7) in Asian nations, say, would accelerate climate change and acidify the oceans (undermining goals 13 and 14), as well as exacerbating other problems such as damage to health from air pollution (disrupting goal 3). If mutually reinforcing actions are taken and trade-offs minimized, the agenda will be able to deliver on its potential. For example, educational efforts for girls (goal 4) in southern Africa would enhance maternal health outcomes (part of goal 3), and contribute to poverty eradication (goal 1), gender equality (goal 5) and economic growth (goal 8) locally”.

In this sense, they propose a seven-point scale of SDG interactions (see ‘Goals scoring’) to organize evidence and support decision-making about national priorities (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Goals scoring, influence of one Sustainable Development Goal or target on another Source: Nilsson et al., 2016

Van Vuuren et al. (2015) analyzed how different combinations of technological measures and behavioral changes could contribute to achieving a set of sustainability objectives, taking into account the interlinkages between them. The objectives included: eradicating hunger (goal 1); providing universal access to modern energy (goal 7); preventing dangerous climate change (goal 13); conserving biodiversity (goal 14,15); and, controlling air pollution (goal 3). The analysis was carried out using IMAGE, a dynamic integrated assessment-modelling framework of interacting human and natural systems over the long run (up to the year 2100). The authors identified different pathways that achieve these objectives simultaneously, requiring substantial transformations in the energy and food systems, which go far beyond historic progress and currently formulated policies. The analysis also shows synergies and trade-offs between achieving the different objectives, concluding that achieving them requires a comprehensive approach. The scenario analysis does not point at a fundamental trade-off between the objectives related to poverty eradication and those related to environmental sustainability. The different pathways of achieving the set of long-term objectives and their implications for short-term action can contribute to building a comprehensive strategy to meet the SDGs by proposing near-term actions.

To date, most of the research on SDGs using integrated assessment models (IAMs) has focused on the analysis of potential synergies

and trade-offs between SDGs globally. At this scale, IAMs are appropriate tools to account for the long-term interactions between human and natural systems. On the other hand, IAMs’ high level of aggregation in terms of technological, spatial and temporal scales and relatively coarse global databases pose limits to the derivation of local policy recommendations. Several sectoral studies have focused on specific aspects of the SDG agenda at the more local scale such as population dynamics and agriculture (Gil et a., 2019).

Despite the initial efforts, the world is not on track for achieving most of the 169 targets that comprise the Goals. The limited success in progress towards the Goals raises strong concerns and sounds the alarm for the international community. The main concern is the fact that recent trends along several dimensions with crosscutting impacts across the entire 2030 Agenda are not even moving in the right direction. Four in particular fall into that category: rising inequalities, climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing amounts of waste from human activity that are overwhelming capacities to process them. Critically, recent analysis suggests that some of those negative trends presage a move towards the crossing of negative tipping points, which would lead to dramatic changes in the conditions of the Earth system in ways that are irreversible on time scales meaningful for society (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2019).

2. AGRO-FOOD SYSTEM ROLE FAO stated that “The world’s population is expected to grow to almost 10 billion by 2050, boosting agricultural demand – in a scenario of modest economic growth – by some 50 percent compared to 2013” (FAO, 2017). Others studies also asserted this trend although with different type of scenario (Popp et al., 2013; Prosekov and Ivanova, 2018). In any situation, the biggest difficulty is to understand how to make this production possible, since it needs to happen in an unchanging environment, different from the one we have today, affected by climate change (de Amorin et al., 2019).

Thus, in the next decades, as a result of expected changes in population and income levels, the agro-food system will play a driving role for the survival of the human beings and for contributing to make the society development more sustainable, taking into account its double role versus climate change: victim and responsible for GHG emissions.

Infact, as stated by the World Food System Center in Zurich

(Switzerland) “A food system includes, is shaped by, and interacts with, a variety of boundary conditions, namely the environmental, social, political and economic conditions and realities which determine how it can function at a particular place of interest.

These boundary conditions are not static; rather they interact with trends and change drivers across national and geographic borders.

For example, what types of crops can be grown in a particular area and their nutritional quality is determined by the climatic conditions, atmospheric composition, soil quality and resource availability, which can all be potentially impacted over time by climate change” (Grant, 2015) (Figure 3).

Some forecasts predict that the environmental effects of the food system could increase by 50–90% in the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, reaching levels that are beyond the planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity (Springmann et al.2018).

Figure 3 – Key elements of a Food System Concept Source: Grant 2015

2.1 Responsible for climate change The whole agro-food system (agriculture and land use, storage, transport, packaging, processing, retail, and consumption) currently contributes between 25-30% of GHG emissions (IPCC, 2019a; Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

Poore and Nemecek (2018) carried out a specific research on this aspect highlighting that, currently, food supply chain creates about 13.7 Gt CO2eq, 26% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. A further 2.8 Gt CO2eq (5%) is caused by nonfood agriculture and other drivers of deforestation. Additionally, food production creates almost 32% of global terrestrial acidification and 78% of eutrophication, deriving by other polluting substances released by this supply chain. These emissions can fundamentally alter the species composition of natural ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and ecological resilience.

The agricultural system is the main responsible in term of climatechange and polluting substances, representing 61% of food’s GHG emissions (81% including deforestation), 79% of acidification, and 95% of eutrophication. It is also very resource intensive, covering about 43% of the world’s ice and desert-free land. Of this land, almost 87% is for food and 13% is for biofuels and textile crops or is allocated to nonfood uses such as wool and leather. They estimated that twothirds of freshwater withdrawals are for irrigation. Nevertheless, irrigation returns less water to rivers and groundwater than industrial and municipal uses and predominates in water-scarce areas and times of the year, driving 90 to 95% of global scarcity-weighted water use.

The following figure 4 summarizes the different contributions to GHG emissions of the entire agro-food supply chain.

Here, it is reported the well detailed comments to this figure as described by the author Ritchie (2019).

Livestock & fisheries account for 31% of food emissions.

Livestock – animals for meat, dairy, eggs and seafood production – contribute to emissions in several ways. Ruminant livestock – mainly cattle – for example, produce methane (CH4) through their digestive processes (‘enteric fermentation’). Manure management, pasture management, and fuel consumption from fishing vessels also fall into this category. This 31% of emissions relates to on-farm ‘production’ emissions only: it does not include land use change or supply chain emissions from the production of crops for animal feed: these figures are included separately in the other categories.

Crop production accounts for 27% of food emissions.

21% of food’s emissions come from crop production for direct human consumption, and 6% comes from the production of animal feed. They are the direct emissions which result from agricultural production – this includes elements such as the release of nitrous oxide (N2O) from the application of fertilizers and manure; methane emissions from rice production; and carbon dioxide (CO2) from agricultural machinery.

Land use accounts for 24% of food emissions. Twice as many emissions result from land use for livestock (16%) as for crops for human consumption (8%). Agricultural expansion results in the conversion of forests, grasslands and other carbon ‘sinks’ into cropland or pasture resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. ‘Land use’ here is the sum of land use change, savannah burning and organic soil cultivation (plowing and overturning of soils).

Supply chains account for 18% of food emissions.

Food processing (converting produce from the farm into final products), transport, packaging and retail all require energy and resource inputs. Many assume that eating local is key to a lowcarbon diet, however, transport emissions are often a very small percentage of food’s total emissions – only 6% globally. Whilst supply chain emissions may seem high, at 18%, it’s essential for reducing emissions by preventing food waste. Food waste emissions are large: one-quarter of emissions (3.3 billion tonnes of CO2eq) from food production ends up as wastage either from supply chain losses or consumers. Durable packaging, refrigeration and food processing can all help to prevent food waste. For example, wastage of processed fruit and vegetables is almost 14% lower than fresh, and 8% lower for seafood (Ritchie, 2019).

Figure 4 – GHG emissions from agro-food system Source: Ritchie, 2019

This data is confirmed by the last report of IPCC, Climate change and Land published in August 2019: agriculture, forestry and other Land Use (AFOLU) activities accounted for around 13% of CO2, 44% of methane (CH4), and 81% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from human activities globally during 2007-2016, representing 23% (12.0 ± 2.9 GtCO2eq yr-1) of total net anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (medium confidence). If emissions associated with pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to be 21–37% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions (medium confidence) (IPCC, 2019).

2.2. Driver for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies In this context, it is clear that the sector is paramount to reach the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement (which imply net zero GHG emissions after 2050), especially given its interaction with landbased mitigation strategies and the possible need for negative emissions (Gil et al. 2019). The agro-food system could be a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. It has great potential to offer emissions efficiency gains, absolute reductions and carbon sinks, while supporting resilience-building and socioeconomic development (FAO, 2018). It needs inputs such as fertilizers to meet growing food demands, and it is not possible to stop cattle from producing methane. There are several options for reducing the environmental effects, including dietary changes towards healthier, more plant-based diets, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste: a synergistic combination of measures will be needed to sufficiently mitigate the projected increase in environmental pressures (Springmann et al., 2018; Ritchie, 2019; Sellberg et al., 2020).

As stated by IPCC (2019): “Diversification in the food system (e.g., implementation of integrated production systems, broadbased genetic resources, and diets) can reduce risks from climate change (medium confidence). Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present

major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health (high confidence). By 2050, dietary changes could free several Mkm2 (medium confidence) of land and provide a technical mitigation potential of 0.7 to 8.0 Gt CO2e yr-1, relative to business as usual projections (high confidence).

Transitions towards low-GHG emission diets may be influenced by local production practices, technical and financial barriers and associated livelihoods and cultural habits (high confidence)”.

Springmann et al. (2018) stated that combining all these options at a level of medium ambition (e.g. halving food waste) could result in food system impacts in 2050 that are within 15% above or below current impacts, while combining all options at a level of high ambition (e.g. reducing food waste by 75%) could mean 2050 impacts are 20% to 55% lower than today. Dietary change is predicted to have the greatest effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while technological change has significant contributions to reducing cropland use, blue water use, and nitrogen and phosphorus application (Figure 5).

The circular economy concept is often applied in agro-industrial systems to reduce the losses, wastes and avoidable environmental impacts of food supply chains. Especially, precision agriculture provides a stable supply of the appropriate quality agro-product.

The precision agriculture is further enhancing the circularity of food systems. To optimize productivity and resource efficiency, Industry 4.0 tools, such as artificial intelligence, needs to be integrated into precision agriculture (Tseng et al., 2019). This is another approach to make sustainable and with low-GHG emissions the agro-food system.

Figure 5 – Present (2010) and projected (2050) environmental pressures on five environmental domains Source: Springmann et al., 2018

3. SDGs AND AGRO-FOOD SYSTEM Speaking about SDGs means speaking about food and agriculture.

Speaking about food and agriculture means scaling up SDGs as eating is an essential act of human being but it requires consciousness and awareness.

Climate change contributes to land degradation (this costs USD 66 billion per year in terms of ecosystem service loss for land productivity) that in turn reduces food productivity (12% which means a 30% increase in world food prices). Agriculture and food systems, as previous stressed, are a large contributor to GHG emissions. This means that regenerating food systems and agriculture requires the propagation of a virtuous circle of food security and ecosystem conservation. The agricultural sector will need to increase its resilience and adaptive capacity to climaterelated hazards and natural disasters. Additionally, it will need to increase its ability to mitigate the climate crisis while reducing its contribution to the crisis. Regeneration must be done from both the farming perspective (investments in input-neutral yield growth, transforming both specialized industrial agriculture as well as underperforming smallholder and subsistence farming) and from the consumption patterns perspective (reducing food loss and waste; shaping people’s diet choices towards less-animal sourced food).

The future development of agriculture is hugely important for climate security (SDG 13), food security (SDG 2), economic prosperity of rich and poor regions alike (SDG 1) and terrestrial and marine biodiversity

(SDGs 14 and 15) (Gil et al. 2019). Analysing People (2,3,4), Dignity (1,5) and Justice (16), we can again see an essential role of the regeneration of food systems and agriculture, because feeding the growing world population without degrading the planet’s resources and environment means increasing food security and decreasing poverty in all its forms, as well as investing in the “productive assets of the poor” which are soil, forest, fish, agro-biodiversity and water.

Additionally, we need to decrease stressors on water and land resources, which are two of the biggest causes of conflicts and migration.

3.1. Planet, People, Prosperity The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has brought a more holistic way of looking at development issues, recognizing that “social and economic development depends on the sustainable management of our planet’s natural resources”. Natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows underpin all human activities toward achieving the SDGs. In this context, food systems and agriculture are transversal to the whole SDGs framework, specifically for food security and nutritional diversity, cultural diversity, ecological long term stability, and climate-smart systems as described in the following figure 6:

Figure 6 – Agro-food system interactions with SDGs Source: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2019

4. FUTURE FOOD INSTITUTE’S VISION Future Food Institute has assembled an open toolbox that can be used by anyone in an open source logic aimed at regenerating the planet through food. It’s called “Food for Earth” - The Earth Regeneration Toolbox.

By studying food, both from the use and cultural point of view, we began to map the “places” that threaten the balance between manenvironment-culture-health. We examined the dynamics of production and consumption that, today, use the potential of technology and the new knowledge, generated by data, to create widespread knowledge and awareness. In this way, it is easier to reduce and enhance waste and to aim at a model prosperity oriented From 10 July 2019 until today, we have embarked on a real journey of regeneration and discovery, consisting of two fundamental phases: Phase 1: co-design within international training experiences; Phase 2: validation and involvement of stakeholders.

The Phase 1 took place during three missions (summer schools), organized in collaboration with FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). These focused on the three places where human being has more modified the natural ecosystem and, therefore, need to intervene for rebalancing the relationship between Human being/Planet: the cities (Climate Smart Cities, New York, 1017 July 2019); rural agricultural areas (Climate Smart Farms, Tokyo, 1-7 August 2019); oceans and seas (Climate Smart Oceans, Iceland, 1-7 September 2019). The matrix, underlying this toolbox, could appear complex: it crosses three emblematic places of the fight against climate change (New York, Tokyo, Iceland) with ecosystems, as recognized by science, are the hottest places of change (smart cities, rural areas, oceans); but it was addressed and analyzed with great motivation and humanity by all the selected participants, with multidisciplinary profiles, ages, very different backgrounds (scientists, students, entrepreneurs, cooperators, policy makers, innovators, activists, artists); it involved good practice experimented by large companies such as Google, Enel, CAMST, startups such as Aerofarms or Icelandic clusters for the circular economy of the fish market, until social enterprises such as Green Bronx Machine, or big inventors capable to apply the most disruptive technologies to food, such as Plantx in Japan.

For two months, this complexity has been experienced. A learning experience that follows a precise methodology, borrowed thanks to

our irreplaceable travel companion, Prof Matteo Vignoli, who with “Design Thinking” teaches us the magic of innovation, and based on what Galileo Galilei said about teaching: “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to discover it in himself “.

With this spirit, the journey, which led us to create “Food for Earth”, was a journey of inspiration, aspiration - through success stories and action, through workshops and collaborations born within this framework design.

The Phase 2, led by Claudia Laricchia, began in September 2019 and it is involving public and private partners such as FAO, National Research Council, Enel and Ernst & Young, experts and scientists, individuals and organizations. The toolbox, thus validated by the first partners, was presented together with the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations on September 27, on the occasion of the 74th UN General Assembly and Week for Future, the demonstration of young people for the climate.

The “Food for Earth” Toolbox is composed of five areas of innovation, which correspond to some of the 2030 Agenda sustainable development goals and four tools to analyze and customize them on some specific cases.

The five areas of innovation are: Climate smart ecosystems; Circular living; Food identity; Food diplomacy; Prosperity.

The four tools are: Humana Communitas; Platforms; Models; Metrics.

It is the first time that “food”, through which we connect with nature, is at the center of an interactive tool that has followed a complex and choral process, to restore the nature/human being balance.

Today, thanks to Future Food Institute, the future, which cries for the resolution of environmental challenges, finds a tool that anyone can apply, analyze, study and implement to shape the climate crisis, starting from food.

5. “FOOD FOR EARTH” THE EARTH REGENERATION TOOLBOX 5.1 Approach Sustainable Development has brought a more holistic way of looking at development issues, recognizing that “social and economic development depends on the sustainable management of our planet’s na-

FOOD POLICY ACCESS TO FOOD CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLITICAL & ECONOMIC RELATIONS BEYOND AND THROUGH FOOD

tural resources”. Natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows underpin all human activities toward achieving the SDGs. In this context, food systems and agriculture are transversal to the whole SDGs framework, specifically for food security and nutritional diversity, cultural diversity, ecological long term stability, and climate-smart systems as described in the following figure 6:

FOOD DIPLOMACY

CIRCULAR LIVING

CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOOD WASTE & FOOD LOSS SMART HOME/CITIES

FOOD IS ENERGY IS LIFE IS CULTURE IS CARE IS TRADITION IS INCLUSION IS FUN IS PLEASURE

PROSPERITY

NEW KPI FOR BUSINESS SDGs AS BUSINESS FRAMEWORK GREEN FINANCE

CLIMATE-SMART

ECOSYSTEMS

FOOD IDENTITY CULTURE CELEBRATE TRADITIONS FOOD AS MEDICINE SOCIAL INCLUSION DIVERSITY AS VALUE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

Figure 7 - “Food for Earth” - the Food Regeneration Toolbox Source: Future Food Institute, 2019

REGENERATIVE BUSINESS MODELS GREEN NEW DEAL CARBON COMPENSATION CLIMATE ADAPTATION

5.2 Tools

5.3 Innovative areas

The key ingredients to cook our regeneration recipes are:

The first innovative area of action to discover the role of food in regenerating the systems is:

HUMANA COMMUNITAS Ways to engage with and focus on Humana Communitas: not just me or you, but an entire community keeping diversity as a core value, i.e. Citizens, Travelers, Innovators, Chefs, Artists, Farmers, Business Leaders, Families. This also represents the expression used by the Pope to identify the human community that lives and influences life on Planet Earth.

[Rev:. HMW build communities engaged on SDGs first? How can we aggregate multi stakeholders to regenerate food systems? How can communities partner to promote SDGs? How can we regenerate local production and distribution systems to truly enable food sovereignty?

What potential do citizen reporting and citizen science have for shaping food diplomacy?]

PLATFORMS Emerging PLATFORMS enable to activate and facilitate a positive change.

[Rev:. Which are the tools and platforms to be used to increase awareness on SDGs? Which are the analytics to select qualified data to provide effective messages on regenerative actions? Which are the best practices available on the market?]

MODELS New organizational and regenerating MODELS that help us to replicate our positive results and make our impact exponential [Rev:. HMW ensure regenerative levels while also creating scale appropriate and purpose driven regulations? Which is the best approach to be used for every innovation zone? How can be climate smart cities, farms and oceans be re-designed? How can business models re-designed to include sustainability?]

METRICS New METRICS (indexes and data) that allow us to measure our meaningful impact.

[Rev.: HMW measure food systems regeneration? In which ways can the regeneration of food systems increase equity, inclusion, sustainability? Can mapping and data driven approaches ensure the achievement of SDGs? HMW measure the impact of food systems regeneration in terms of social, cultural, environmental, institutional and economic impact? HMW track the sharing of food, knowledge, and resources as an indicator of food systems regeneration levels?].

5.3.1 CLIMATE-SMART ECOSYSTEMS [CITIES/FARMS/OCEANS] Definition: The interactive and cumulative impacts of climate change on natural resources present numerous challenges for conservation planning and management. Climate change adaptation and mitigation are complex due to climate-stressor interactions across multiple spatial and temporal scales. A climate-smart approach is based on principles that assess vulnerabilities to climate change and applying a structured process to design effective adaptation and mitigation strategies, moving from an intensive approach to one with a low environmental impact.

Climate effects on ecosystems will be complicated, complex, and difficult to predict. This suggests that plans and mechanisms for adaptation to or mitigation of effects of climate change should incorporate flexibility. Location-specific case studies will always be necessary and critical in understanding, adapting to, and mitigating (or perhaps in some cases taking advantage of) these changes.

However, broader, more general conceptual frameworks are also needed to contextualize and synthesize such case studies, and ideally to provide at least general guidelines for assessment and prediction (Phillips, 2019) In this context, several studies have been recently published focusing on this innovative area, including different concepts: 1) Ecosystem services and Biodiversity; 2) Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change; 3) climate-smart agriculture and agroforestry; and, 4) sustainable urban ecosystems.

In order to provide readers of a major comprehension about these concepts and their importance for the transition towards sustainable development, following there will be a synthesis of some main scientific articles.

Ecosystem services and biodiversity Ecosystem services (ESs) represent the benefits that humans obtain either directly or indirectly from ecosystems and they have become a popular tool to understand the relationship between humans and nature and to realize sustainable development (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005). Ecosystems provide many services for human well-being, such as providing food, fresh water, and clean air (MEA, 2005).

Biodiversity has an essential role in supply of the ecosystem services although this interrelation is not always so straightforward. Mostly it is associated with so called ‘supporting or intermediate services’, although few studies demonstrated a direct linear relation between species diversity and ecosystem productivity, biomass production, nutrient cycling, etc. Nevertheless, there is an agreement among researchers that functional diversity, formed by type, range and relative abundance of functional traits in a community, can have important consequences for ecosystem processes (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010, Kasparinskis et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, most ecosystems have been converted into agricultural areas, large-scale plantations and other human land

uses to maximize single-use, such as food, timber or housing; these single service functions often result in many negative effects (externalities), such as erosion, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity (Su et al., 2020). Nearly two-thirds of global ecosystems are suffering degradation (MEA, 2005), due to the impacts of both direct environmental drivers (e.g. climate change, urbanization, the spread of invasive species) and indirect drivers (e.g. socioeconomic development, technology and policies). Among them, climate change and urbanization have been recognized as the most critical factors (Lyu et al., 2019).

Therefore, estimating the economic value of ecosystem services has become increasingly common over the last 30 years. In undertaking valuation, this information can provide insights to managers and policy makers and raise awareness among the beneficiaries of ecosystem services. Understanding the impacts of climate change on ecosystem services can help develop climate-smart strategies for the sustainable management of natural resources (Underwood et al., 2019; Lyu et al., 2019). For instance, Lyu et al. (2019) showed as compact urban growth, riparian vegetation buffers and ecological protection strategies can effectively reduce the trade-offs and simultaneous losses to ESs under future global warming after an assessment of the impacts of climate and land use change driven by urbanization on multiple ecosystem services in China. Thus, it

becomes very important to regulate ecosystem services for affecting environmental conditions, including soil, water, and air quality; climate variations; and the frequency and intensity of hazards (Cortinovis et al., 2019).

This approach could be particularly useful also for understanding concern about climate change and awareness of its impacts on local environments; local publics often can be uninterested in or unworried by scientific findings about the human causes of climate change. Combining the ecosystem service framework with questions about local environmental change should help guide scientists and policymakers communicate more effectively about climate-related effects and potential responses (Cornell et al. 2019).

This is clearly shown in Figure 8, which connects biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and ecosystem services but, above all, the drivers of change derving from the socio-economic systems. Among these latter, drivers such as climate change and population increase (with associated demands for food and infrastructure) will increase pressure on BES further (Shih et al., in press). The interrelation between biodiversity, ecosystem and socio-economic system via flows of ecosystem services and drivers of change is reflected also within the conceptual framework for EU and national ecosystem assessment developed by MAES initiative under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity strategy (Maes et al., 2016)

Figure 8 - Conceptual framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Source: Maes et al., 2016, 2018

Ecosystem functions are defined as the capacity or the potential to deliver ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are, in turn, derived from ecosystem functions and they represent the realized flow of services for which there is demand. People benefit from ecosystem (goods and) services. These benefits are, among others, nutrition, access to clean air and water, health, safety, and enjoyment. The focus on benefits implies that ecosystem services are open to economic valuation. However, the notion of value should not be restricted to the merely monetary value. Therefore, it was important to include other values as well, such as health value, sociocultural value or conservation value. Institutions, stakeholders and users of ecosystem services affect ecosystems through direct or indirect drivers of change. Policies concerning natural resource management (e.g. agriculture) aim to adapt drivers of change to achieve a desired future state of ecosystems. Many other policies (e.g. energy, territorial cohesion) also affect these drivers and thus can be added to the framework as they have an impact on ecosystems even though they might not target them explicitly (Maes et al, 2016) Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change Societal adaptation to climate change requires measures that simultaneously reduce poverty, protector restore biodiversity and ecosystem services, and remove atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) to climate change is the

type of adaptation that aims to combine these outcomes and is particularly relevant to developing nations that safeguard most of the planetary biodiversity and healthy ecosystems (Scarano, 2017). EbA approaches supports the development of ecosystem services, and therefore increases human wellbeing.

The concept of EbA was first introduced in the international policy arena by the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in 2008, and has been widely advocated by environmental organizations since then (Geneletti et al., 2016). It leverages an understanding of the relationships between ecosystems, the ways people live, and the wellbeing and resilience of communities, in order to achieve maximum benefit for people. This means working with rather than against nature for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Fundamentally, EbA is the practice of strengthening biodiversity and ecosystems to increase people’s ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change. It has proved to provide flexible, cost effective and broadly applicable alternatives for reducing the impacts of climate change (Munang, et al., 2013; Perdesen Zari et al., in press). It represents the right approach to shift from a conventional development pathway to a sustainable development pathway, trough a transition process (figure 9). This sustainability transition requires policy mixes given the complexity it entails. The ecosystem-based adaptation is a policy mix that promotes adaptive transition, which is a step towards sustainability transitions (Scarano et al., 2017).

Figure 9 - EbA as a policy mix that links policies related to BES, socio-economics and carbon mitigation Source: Scarano et al., 2017

As opposed to more traditional infrastructure-based approaches (e.g., levees, sea walls, irrigation systems), EbA offers the advantage of promoting “no regrets” interventions, and potentially delivering multiple economic, social and environmental co-benefits that go beyond climate adaptation. These co-benefits include, among others, biodiversity conservation through enhanced habitat conditions; climate mitigation through increased carbon sequestration;

conservation of traditional knowledge, livelihood and practices of local communities; improved recreation and tourism opportunities; enhanced food security (Geneletti et al., 2016).

EbA in cities include approaches based on the design and improvement of green and blue infrastructure (e.g., urban parks, green roofs and facades, tree planting, rivers, ponds), as well as other types of interventions that use ecosystem functions to

provide some form of adaptation to climate risks (e.g., measures to reduce soil imperviousness). In cities, most ecosystems are“urban ecosystems”, i.e., ecosystems where the built infrastructure covers a large proportion of the land surface, or those in which people live at high densities. Urban ecosystems include all green and blue spaces in urban areas, and typically have a low level of naturalness, being heavily managed or entirely artificial. Green roofs are an example of urban ecosystems almost exclusively determined by humans and that require regular maintenance (Oberndorfer et al., 2007). The term EbA measures is commonly used also in cities to refer to the use of urban ecosystems to provide services that help to adapt to climate change (Geneletti et al., 2016; EEA, 2012).

Agricultural ecosystems, climate-smart agriculture and agroforestry.

Agriculture ecosystems are vital for society, because of the services they provide. Traditionally, agriculture ecosystem has been

considered mainly as sources of provisioning services, however the contributions of agriculture ecosystem to provide ecosystem services of other types have been recognized in recent times (MEA, 2005). For example, any agricultural ecosystem is managed for the provision of food, fiber, energy, carbon sequestration, pollination, pest control, soil fertility, and so on. Agriculture ecosystem can deliver a variety of other ecosystem services (regulatory services) such as flood regulation, water quality regulation, climate regulation and carbon storage, which indirectly control greenhouse gas emissions, treatment of different kind of wastes and regulation of various diseases. Cultural services might be included in the list, such as education, scenic beauty, recreation and support to tourism. Biodiversity conservation is sometimes included as a cultural ecosystem service supported by agriculture ecosystem, but it can also deliver a wide range of other supporting services to agriculture and nearby other ecosystems (Shah et al., 2019) (Figure 10).

Figure 10 – Agricultural ecosystem services classification Source: Shah et al., 2019

In this context, FAO coined the term “climate smart agriculture” (CSA), which refers to a “toolbox” of principles and practices aimed at facilitating “a significant transformation in order to meet the related challenges of achieving food security and responding to climate change” (FAO, 2017; Gosnell et al., 2019). Since practices that support climate change mitigation and adaptation do not necessarily preclude the use of synthetic fertilizers and other chemicals, there have been efforts among supporters of more ecologically-oriented approaches to CSA to differentiate themselves in terms of their commitment to soil regeneration and, in some cases, a larger purpose, which has an ethical element. Variously identified with ecological agriculture, biological agriculture, conservation agriculture, permaculture, Holistic Management, and carbon farming, the umbrella concept of “regenerative agriculture” goes above and beyond CSA in that its focus is on enhancing and restoring holistic, regenerative, resilient systems supported by functional ecosystem processes and healthy, organic soils capable of producing a full suite of ecosystem services, among them soil carbon sequestration and improved soil water retention. As such, climate change mitigation and adaptation

are incidental to a larger enterprise that employs a systems approach to managing landscapes and communities.

Most climate-smart practices have to do with leveraging ecosystem processes to increase soil organic matter and soil biodiversity which serves the dual purpose of fostering forage growth without chemicals and increasing water holding capacity in order to reduce vulnerability to droughts and floods (Gosnell et al., 2019).

Climate-smart agroforestry is a CSA practice. Specifically, it has been a case study, carried out by Haile et al., 2019, which involved the integration of faidherbia albida (a fertilizer tree) into food crop systems in Ethiopia. The practice comprises benefits associated with yield increments, and ecosystem services such as; mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity, and reducing land degradation. Haile et al., 2019 examined smallholder farmers’ preferences for the uptake of contractual climate-smart agroforestry, which yields economic and ecosystem benefits. A discrete choice experiment was conducted with smallholder farmers in Ethiopia to elicit their willingness to participate in a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme that incentivizes integrating faidherbia

albida (a fertilizer tree) in their monocropping farming system. The authors showed the presence of heterogeneity in preferences across segments of farmers in conjunction with differences in household characteristics. These findings shed light on the considerations that must be accounted for when designing and implementing environmental policies such as PES schemes that promote largescale adoption of climate-smart agroforestry, which would transform smallholder agriculture into a sustainable farming system.

Smart urban ecosystems In cities, most ecosystems are “urban ecosystems”, i.e., ecosystems where the built infrastructure covers a large proportion of the land surface, or those in which people live at high densities. Urban ecosystems include all green and blue spaces in urban areas, and typically have a low level of naturalness, being heavily managed or entirely artificial. Although varying definitions for the term exist, examples of green infrastructure include managed parks and open green spaces, naturalized woodlands, green roofs and walls, and stormwater management systems such as rain gardens. Green roofs are an example of urban ecosystems almost exclusively determined by humans and that require regular maintenance. The term EbA measures is commonly used also in cities to refer to the use of urban ecosystems to provide services that help to adapt to climate change (Geneletti et al., 2016; EEA, 2012).

The cities of the future should, by necessity, strive to be greener.

Green infrastructure creation and management are so vital to urban

resilience and livability. Urban forests, comprising of all trees and associated vegetation within a city, are a particular type of green infrastructure that provides innumerable benefits to city dwellers.

These benefits, also known as ecosystem services, include, but are not limited to, heat mitigation, energy savings, protection from air pollution, biodiversity and natural richness, carbon sequestration and storage, stormwater and flood water management, public and social support spaces, and a sense of place and belonging. These benefits are vital for health promotion and the general wellbeing of urban residents throughout their lifetime (Nitoslawski et al., 2019).

Nitoslawski et al., 2019 proposed a new approach that is “smart urban forest” a focus on novel monitoring techniques using sensors and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, as well as open data and citizen engagement, particularly through the use of mobile devices, applications (“apps”), and open source mapping platforms. We propose a definition and promising approach to “smart urban forest management”, emphasizing both the potential of digital infrastructure to enhance forest benefits and the facilitation of citizen stewardship and empowerment in green space planning.

In this context, Cortinovis et al., 2019, stressed consequently that in urban areas it is necessary to regulate Ecosystem Services locally that were produced by urban ecosystems and their components such as: air purification, microclimate regulation, noise reduction, and runoff mitigation, which play a key role in promoting healthy, livable, and resilient cities. Despite this, regulating ES are often overlooked in current decision-making processes.

5.3.2 CIRCULAR LIVING [URBAN AREAS/BUILDING/HOUSES] Definition: Circular living includes a new mindset for eliminating waste in a continuous use of resources. Circular systems employ recycling, reuse remanufacturing and refurbishment to create a closed system, minimising the use of resource input and the creation of waste. This regenerative approach is in contrast to the traditional linear economy, which has a ‘take, make, dispose’ model of production.

For good reason, circularity is a term that has gained much attention in recent years. As we plan for the future, it will be important to continue to satisfy a need to increase efficiency through circularity.

This will require careful consideration of our food system and the identification and targeted improvement of points of inefficiency.

This is an undertaking that has been claimed by many.

As we look towards the future and the design of climate-smart cities, it will become increasingly important to recognise the effect of our actions. A number of questions will need to be answered. How do we cater to a growing population? How do we increase efficiency and decrease loss? How do we feed future cities ethically and consciously? All of these questions, and many more, will need to be answered while we move towards a more inclusive, resilient and conscious future.

Circular economy and cities: smart, sustainable and circular Urbanisation and climate change are urging cities to chart novel paths towards sustainable futures to deliver their citizens a liveability, wealth, and environmental well-being (Prendeville et al., 2018). These strategies include enhancements in urban services, infrastructure, and environmental issues as some observable cases.

In this viewpoint, the discussion of smart sustainable development regarding cities has increased (Macke et al., 2019).

The required elements for making sustainable cities are many and the rallying point of these elements is the triple bottom line approach of sustainability (i.e. environment, economics and equity). Each element is directly or indirectly connected to these sustainability principles (Sodiq et al., 2019). Sustainable cities have as their main task, the implementation of greener policies that mitigate negative impacts and can lead to strategies for environment regeneration (Macke et al., 2019).

Cities can be sustainable without smartness, in the same way, that smart technologies can be used without considering sustainable development. Indeed, according to Giffinger et al. (2007) and ISO (2018) a smart city is characterized by six key dimensions: quality of life (Smart Living), competitiveness (Smart Economy), social and human capital (Smart People), public and social services and citizen participation (Smart Governance), transport and communication infrastructure. They “Provide better services for citizens; provide a better life environment where smart policies, practices and technology are put to the service of citizens; achieve their sustainability and environmental goals in a more innovative way; Identify the need for smart infrastructure; facilitate innovation and growth; and build a dynamic and innovative economy ready for the challenges of tomorrow”.

Only when smart Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is applied to sustainable purposes in the cities, that the smart sustainable city concept emerges. In line with the Brundtland definition, the smart sustainable city is a city that: (1) converges the needs of its citizens; (2) without harming the capacity of other people

or future generations to meet their needs, and (3) where it is supported by smart ICT. The smart sustainable city “focuses on a continuous transformative process, based on stakeholder engagement and collaboration, and building different types of human, institutional and technical capacities”. In this perspective, the city contributes to improving the quality of life of its citizens by seeking socioeconomic development and preserving natural resources among other locallydefined priorities (Macke et al., 2019). A new paradigm in governing and managing future cities sustainably is shifting towards circular economy.

Circular economy The circular economy (CE) offers an alternative that would tackle current environmental challenges and “(…) aims to rely on renewable energy; minimizes, tracks, and eliminates the use of toxic chemicals; and eradicates waste through careful design” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The desired goal of the CE is to design production and consumption models that have a positive impact on the environment and encourage global sustainable development (Levoso et al., 2019).

Definitely, it could be said that the circular economy, also called the “cradle-to-cradle” model, goes beyond recycling of waste into resources. It is a new way of thinking about how to achieve growth without expending resources.

Ghisellini et al. (2020) underlined that the CE is considered as one of the solutions to the global environmental problems at policy level the CE aimed to reduce the use of natural resources and other environmental impacts of economic activities (OECD, 2018; UNEP, 2018). The European Union is one of the most involved areas in the CE transition (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018, 2015a) along with China. On 2015 the EU launched the Circular Economy Package and the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, establishing a programme of action with measures and legislative proposals to support the transition towards the CE and a sustainable development (EC, 2018). Several companies, municipalities, foundations and associations are adopting the principles of CE in their organizations and many technical reports (also based on case studies and personal interview surveys of the target organizations) have been published evidencing how these organizations are approaching the transition and the benefits they are receiving, in so providing a positive snapshot of Italy’s CE competitiveness (i.e. ENEL and Symbola Foundation, 2018). A Web platform has also been created named “Atlas of circular economy” for sharing the experiences and information on the application of CE in Italy and showing the geographical distribution of the involved organizations.

Application of circular economy (CE) to cities’ economic principles would close energy and material loops, narrow resource input, emission, waste and energy leakages. Many cities are turning to the alluring ‘circular economy’ concept to guide this redirection. The CE concept re-imagines how flows of resources moving through economies might be ‘closed’ (Prendeville et al., 2018). In the end, our future cities would have the capacity to mimic nature’s carbon and water cycles, where recovery and reuse are more important than the current sustainability condition that places much emphasis on recycle (Sodiq et al., 2019).

Whilst numerous studies cover CE practices, few papers cover

how it is being implemented and how cities (hotspots of material consumption, waste generation and disconnected pollution) are transitioning from linear-like processing of materials to a cyclical form (Campbell-Johnston et al., 2019). This is stressed also by Fratini et al. (2019), who stated: “While there are long standing interests in the role of cities in promoting sustainability transitions, relatively little attention has been given to understanding the interrelationships between urban sustainability transitions and circular economy”.

Governments and other actors are promoting the CE as a potential sustainable solution ranging from top-down approaches in China to multi-stakeholder engagement in the EU. A CE uses the R-principles, ranging from a 3R (Reduce - Reuse - Recycle) in China through 5Rs (Reduce - Reuse - Remanufacture - Recycle - Recover) to 10Rs (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Reduce refers to reducing materials used in production; Reuse requires additional product use without or marginal adaptation; Remanufacture brings an item back into functional use; Recycling involves using material components in

different applications; and Recover captures energy embodied in material/waste through incineration/methane extraction (CampbellJohnston et al., 2019).

Consequently, the application of CE approach to city generates the new definition of ‘circular city’, where the newest iteration of urban sustainability initiatives increases the ‘added value’ of urban metabolism by building on industrial ecology and integrating and redesigning infrastructure, logistical services, industries, and the socio-cultural system at multiple levels of governance, including more recently on social consumption (Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018).

Prendeville et al. (2018) explored this new concept and the relative strategies for its implementation. They found that political leadership, building adaptable future visions, using experimental approaches (such as living labs), developing contextual knowledge about resource use, and engaging with diverse stakeholders to be important. In the following Figure 11, it is reported a conceptual framework of a circular city based on the literature review.

Figure 11 – The circular city framework, adapted from the ReSOLVE framework (EMF, 2015b) Source: Prendeville et al., 2018

Top-down change is institution-driven (in this case municipal/local government) change such as strategy and policy decisions including public-private partnership projects concerned with developing and facilitating market initiatives. Bottom-up change describes social movements and social innovation such as initiatives and entrepreneurial activities initiated and run by civil society, NGOs, communities and businesses. In the following table, circular city principles are showed.

However, it is not easy to apply this approach to urban system.

(Kirchher et al., 2018) stressed that the main barriers are the cultural ones, particularly a lack of consumer interest and awareness as well as a hesitant company culture, as perceived by businesses and policy-makers. These are driven by market barriers, which, in turn, are induced by a lack of synergistic governmental interventions to accelerate the transition towards a circular economy. Meanwhile, not a single technological barrier is ranked among the most pressing circular economy barriers. .

Table 1 Source: Prendeville et al., 2018

Tools for measurement of circular living It is well known that the common indicators to quantify and assess environmental performance are the Environmental footprints.

The footprints indicators include carbon emission footprint, water footprint, nitrogen footprint, land footprint, emission footprint, energy footprint and ecological footprint etc.

Indicators of the circular economy specify more on material flow accounting system, which is derived, based on European Union material flow and Japanese material flow indicator system. Energy, water and waste are the dominant areas where the efficiency improvement could significantly contribute to the circular economy and consequently environmental sustainability (Van Fan et al., 2019).

The monitoring of CE at a macro scale currently includes methods using Material Flow Analysis (MFA), emergy analysis, and InputOutput analysis.

Recently, the European Commission proposed a monitoring framework on CE (EC, 2018). Among private consultants, Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) is in the roots of CE concept formulation.

Despite these actions, so far there is no commonly agreed concept of CE. Different actors have distinct interpretations of what CE could or should depict, where the connection with sustainability is not always clear (Kirchherr et al., 2017). Despite the blurred boundaries of CE definition, there is a need for specific methods to measure the CE progress (Moraga et al., 2019).

Moraga et al. (2019) proposed, in their research, a CE classification framework to categorise indicators according to reasoning on what (CE strategies) and how (measurement scope), using micro scale indicators (products, businesses, and companies) and macro scale indicators (from the European ‘CE monitoring framework’).

They conclude that most indicators focus on the preservation of materials. Strategies focusing on materials, especially recycling, are well-developed actions but they are some of the existing options to promote CE. Their framework illustration suggests that a set of indicators should be used to assess CE instead of a single indicator.

Similarly, Corona et al., 2019 carried out an exhaustive study on circularity metrics being developed and applied by a review of the academic and institutional literature, highlighting that none of them are addressing the CE concept in full.

They categorised the circularity metrics mainly into two groups: (1) circularity measurement indices aimed at providing a value expressing how circular a system is. These indices were developed by defining the main attribute of the CE (e.g. recirculated materials in a product), to afterwards assign it a numerical scale, which ranges from 0 to 100%, and represents the circularity degree.

(2) circularity assessment tools aimed at analysing the contribution of circular strategies to the principles of CE. This group of metrics is focused on the environmental or economic impacts in society of the circular strategy, rather than on the intrinsic circularity. This group can be further distinguished into CE assessment indicators and CE assessment frameworks, where the former ones use single (or aggregated) scores, and the latter ones are assessment tools providing multiple assessment indicators that can be adapted to specific case studies.

In both cases, the underlying goal of the tools is to provide an indication on the extent that the CE principles are followed. Fig. 12 shows the classification of circularity metrics as described in this review. This review found seven circularity measurement indices, nine CE assessment indicators and three assessment frameworks.

Although the three assessment frameworks were initially not developed for assessing circularity, they have been widely applied for this purpose (50% of the reviewed articles applied or proposed LCA or derived indicators as main circularity metric, and 12% proposed MFA). Likewise, as shown in Figure 1o, some ad-hoc circularity assessment indicators were also based on the LCA methodology (Corona et. al, 2019) .

Figure 12 – Classification of reviewed circularity metrics (see also the following table) Source: Corona et. al, 2019

Finally, they stressed that: “the major challenges of current circularity metrics relate to (1) difficulties in measuring the CE goals in all the sustainability dimensions, (2) evaluating the scarcity of used materials, and (2) underrepresenting the complexities of multiple cycles (multifunctionality) and the consequences of material downcycling.

This review found that most of the metrics are still far to be able to represent the benefits of different waste valorisation options. Even mature tools such as LCA, that have been developing for decades, have still not consensually solved how to model the complexity of openloop recycling. Finally, a good circularity metric, aiming to measure the contribution of circular strategies to sustainable development, should be comprehensive enough to avoid burden shifting from reduced material consumption to increased environmental, economic or social impacts” Parchomenko et al., 2019 carried out a study for clustering metrics for CE. They used the method of Multiple Correspondence Analysis (to assess 63 CE metrics and 24 features relevant to CE, such as recycling efficiency, longevity (lifetime of resources in time units) and stock availability. The analysis identified three main clusters of metrics, (1) a resource-efficiency cluster, (2) a materials stocks and flows cluster, (3) a product-centric cluster. The results of the analysis show poor integration of resource-efficiency and product-centric perspectives, while the product-centric and system-dynamic perspectives are least frequently assessed. Further, the analysis provides the most prevailing CE perspectives and it is shown that only a few CE metrics assess CE features that are related to the maintenance of value.

The MCA provides a guidance for further metrics development, as it identifies areas with a lower metrics density. For a detailed analysis, a standardized visualisation framework for CE metrics is derived, which allows to compare individual metrics in a simple and illustrative way.

The goal of the visualisation framework is to provide guidance for (i) the integration of the most complementary CE metrics and (ii) facilitate further metrics development.

Another CE metric is provided by Enel (2018). It developed a unique Key Performance Indicator that can be considered as a proxy of all the circularity parameters of the product or of the project. This index considers the sum of the Circular Flow (representing the circularity in the flows of materials and energy) and Circular Use (representing the circularity in the use approach).

If we move towards the application of circulaty metrics to urban areas, the question becomes more complex.

Wang et al. (2018), indeed, highlighted that the premises for an index to measure urban CE development is strongly connected to other sustainability and green indices, which have a longer history of development. For example, Bob and Mary (2011) proposed a “green index”; in a 2008 publication in National Geographic, which was picked up by the company Globe- Scan, it was used to calculate the green index of different consumer areas. Li et al. (2014) calculated the value of Human Green Development Index (HGDI) in 123 countries. Xiang and Zheng (2013) built China’s green economic development index, and showed that China’s green economy is still at a low development level. Zhang and Zhao (2012) constructed a quantitative index system of low carbonization based on the DPSIR (Driving Forces-Pressure- State-Impact-Response) model. Various tools and methodologies exist to evaluate national and regional CE development, among which, material flow accounting or analysis (MFA) has been popular (Bringezu et al., 2003). There are two widely used MFA derived indicator systems, namely the EU and the Japanese material flow indicator systems (Geng et al., 2012).

Table 2 Source: Corona et. al, 2019

Table 3 Source: Wang et al., 2018

Thus, they proposed an evaluation index system for urban CE development (UCDI) that uses an improved entropy methodology combining expert and entropy weightings, including includes 17 individual indicators grouped into four main criteria: Resource output, industrial circularity, residential circularity, and mechanisms and culture. The index was calculated for 40 cities that were part of China’s pilot CE cities program for alternating years in the five year period between 2012 and 2016. The study found that the level of urban CE increased significantly over the five year period, with that in the CE pilot cities growing at a faster rate than the national average.

Results show that a certain relationship exists between UCDI, urban types and economic development, but has little relationship with industrial structure. Finally, recommendations for the promotion of urban CE are proposed.

Also Santagata et al. (2019) tried to provide a new tool for resolving this difficulty. They proposed the Energy Accounting method (EMA) to design an improved approach to CE systemic aspects, focusing on the importance of new indicators capable of capturing both resource generation (upstream), product (downstream) and systems dimensions. The result highlighted that EMA was capable to keep track of the improvement generated by the implemented circularity patterns in terms of reduced total energy of the system. Moreover, EMA indicators suggested that, in any case, the CE business framework should be intended as a transitional strategy towards more feasible paradigms.

Petit-Boix et al. (2018) analysed the extent to which research focuses on quantifying the environmental balance of CE initiatives promoted at the municipal level. To this end, the analysis scanned CE initiatives reported in cities around the globe and classified them into urban targets and CE strategies. Results showed a diverse geographical representation, as reported cities concentrated in Europe, whereas for environmental research, the main results came from China. In general, cities encourage strategies relating to urban infrastructure

(47%), with and additional focus on social consumption aspects, such as repair and reuse actions. In comparison, research mainly addressed industrial and business practices (58%), but the approach to infrastructure was similar to that of cities, both with a special interest in waste management. Research has yet to assess social consumption and urban planning strategies, the latter essential for defining the impacts of other urban elements. Hence, there is a need to define the environmental impacts of the strategies that cities select in their quest for circularity. Research and practice can also benefit from working collaboratively so as to prioritize the CE strategies that best fit into the features of each urban area.

Christis et al. (2019), starting from the evidence that productive activities are triggered by consumption needs and therefore climate change mitigation strategies should also focus also on the 1 2 consumption side, above all in urban areas, presented a quantitatively assessment of the potential impact of CE strategies of primary material footprint (MF) and carbon footprint (CF) of households in areas an urban area (Brussels). Because the CE-strategies are linked to consumption domains, this assessment first calculates both footprints of consumption domains using a city-level input-output analysis and discusses the relationship between the footprints.

The research findings of Christis et al. (2019) showed that: “the household consumption domains of food, housing and transport were identified as hotspots in both footprints. Within these domains, they calculated and discussed the potential impact on both footprints of CEstrategies on consumption or production of food, mobility and housing.

Results from this case show that with these strategies Brussels could mitigate 25% of its CF and 26% of its MF, 18% of its CF and 26% of its MF, and 7% of its CF and 10% of its MF, respectively. The methodology and insights could therefore support authorities and policy-makers to effectively develop coherent and consistent action plans on consumption domains to improve resource efficiency and reduce GHGs, simultaneously” (Figure 13).

1 Specifically, the Material Footprint follows the same concept as carbon or water footprints, and efforts are underway to apply this indicator on an international scale.

Material Footprint (MF) is the attribution of global material extraction to domestic final demand of a country. The total material footprint is the sum of the material footprint for biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and non-metal ores. It is an indicator that allows us to take into account the full amount of raw materials used to satisfy a given country’s level of domestic consumption. The results provide a better representation of the true impact of resource use, including both materials extracted within the country and those mobilized indirectly outside our borders in order to produce and transport imported products. The inclusion of indirect material flows raises significantly the level of the quantified apparent flows. These indirect flows involve, notably, imports of fossil fuels and metallic minerals, both of which contribute to increasing material footprint (Wiedmann et al., 2015).

2 While, the Carbon Footprint was born to measure the overall amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions linked directly or indirectly with a product (that means both goods and services), along its supply-chain (EC-JRC, 2009). Such releases are all expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) thanks to the Global Warming Potential (GWP), which indicates the potential climate change effect per kg of a GHG over a fixed period (e.g. 100 years). The CF studies were then applied at various scales, such as for households, organizations, and corporations, nations and cities that, under climate change mitigation policies, must have a comprehensive tool for implementing specific actions in such fields. There exists a significant difference between national and cities CF since: a) for nations, emissions data are always based on production activities within the territorial spatial boundary; b) for cities, actually, emission data could be based also on spatial relationships with surrounding hinterlands and the global resource web, since the city condition is more complex than that of the country. In this context, the CF applied to a city (Urban CF) has been recognized as a comprehensive view for assessing the GHG emissions arising from an urban system in order to provide a valuable tool for local policy decision- makers (Lombardi et al., 2017; 2018).

Figure 13 – Relationship between MF and CF in Brussels Source: Christis et al., 2019

Role of agro-food system in circular living In this context, the role of food system is very important in implementing the CE concept in urban areas.

There was little discussion regarding food issues and urban studies.

However, in the days we live, problems related to food became extremely integrated into cities, making it impossible to ignore the role that food plays in urban centers (Maye, 2019). In this sense, cities are increasingly engaging in practices aimed at the food and agriculture through social movements and actions from authorities and city councils. These movements are necessary to find solutions demanded by this scenario we live in, using technological advances, political expressions, and other initiatives, making cities more sustainable, resilient and smart (de Amorim et al., 2019). de Amorim et al. (2019) underlined that: “Current urban food systems are characterized for a lack of urban-rural links, and cities depend heavily on industrialized food supply chains, which possess global sources and are generally based on mass production. There are several studies on literature regarding challenges and opportunities on urban farming, peri-urban link farming, rural-urban link farming, and urban food loops to achieve food security in cities”.

They argued that the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings various urban farming technologies such as spatial farming, roof-farming, vertical farming, hydroponics, aeroponics, LED-based artificial farming, etc. promoting progress to achieve food production and supply in urban areas (McDougal et al., 2019; Rahdriawan et al., 2019; Salim et al., 2019; Olivier, 2019; Taufani et al., 2017; P.lling et al., 2017; Fang, 2019; den Besten, 2019; Lu, 2017a,b). Recently, the internet things of using network mobile technologies, smart city planning link with the urban food system, smart city-food links to provide a solution to the urban

food supply system (Wantchekon et al., 2019; Maye, 2019).

To enable cities to become more circular, passing through the food system, decision-makers need detailed data about the production and treatment of waste in general and, specifically, food waste. At city level, conventional statistics on waste are often incomplete or lack detail. Waste input-output accounting offers an alternative, using waste supply and use tables to create detailed inventories of economy-wide flows of waste. In terms of waste prevention and local valorisation potential, food waste is identified as one of the most important flows and sectors for future targeting (Zeller et al., 2018).

Food waste is a global problem and not limited to a specific region, although the methods adopt in treating food may be different across the world. Food waste is a major problem in achieving the objectives of sustainable development. Estimate of food waste per capita in developed countries is 107 kg/year, whereas it is 56 kg/ year for developing countries, which amounts to 50- 55% of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Most of this waste is generated at the consumption stage (Sodiq et al., 2019). According to a study carried out in the EU- 28 countries, Food Waste (FW) is expected to rise to 126 million tons per year by 2020 if no additional prevention policies are implemented. This forecast is in contrast with the ambitious goal set by the UN and included within the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 12.3 that states “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” (UN, 2015). To date, FW is one of the most serious issues in developed countries, therefore most academic and practical interventions have been focused on consumer food waste since it is mainly caused by

the fact that individuals residing in these countries tend to waste much more food than individuals in developing countries. According to Gustavsson et al. (2011), the amount of food wasted per capita by consumers in Europe and North America amounts to 95–115 kg per year, while in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/South East Asia it is only 6–11 kg/year. However, surprisingly food losses (FL) in industrialized countries are as high as in developing countries and equally as serious (Gustavsson et al., 2011).

Along with food waste, agricultural waste is another area where tons of food waste are generated, identified as food loss or losses that.

The European Commission acknowledged the importance of FLW prevention and included it as a part of Circular Economy Package (European Commission, 2015). To date, few studies focused on FLW according to the CE perspective. Some specifically focused on recovering FW and transforming it into energy or bio-materials (Sisto et al., 2017; Prosperi et al., 2018), while other studies focused on implementing food sharing models in order to reduce FW without defining an explicit CE framework. Moreover, all of these studies only focused on consumer and retail FW and did not take FL into consideration (Principato et al., 2019). Incentives to use elements from the Fourth Industrial Revolution such as robotics and automation can significantly contribute in increasing food production and reducing food waste in all the process, especially in harvesting.

According to McCarthy et al. (2018), roughly 40% of the United State’s agricultural production is wasted in harvesting and transporting. New solutions such as IoT and implementing microchips in containers could help avoiding waste therefore promoting food security. A machine learning process could also provide a better control of temperature inside containers, allowing for a better conservation of foodstuffs until the point they arrive at urban centers, where they are consumed (de Amorim et al., 2019).

Ghisellini and Ulgiati (2020) evaluated the transition to CE in Italy on a sample of 292 organizations after introducing a brief overview of the main principles of CE (reduction, repair, reuse, recover, remanufacturing, recycling) as well as how they are implemented at macro level. About food waste, the highlighted that about 23% of the companies operating in sectors for bio-by-products recycling for new products that are listed in the following table, showing a number of very promising options.

Zasada et al. (2019) elaborated an interesting model for a circular living through food system. This model includes all the aspects relative to the ecological footprint of food consumption, selfsufficiency as a means of food security, and regionalisation of food systems for shortening supply chains. The Metropolitan Foodshed and Self-sufficiency Scenario (MFSS) model, indeed, combines regional food consumption and agricultural production parameters in a data-driven approach to assess the spatial extent of foodsheds as well as the theoretical self-sufficiency of the communities they serve.

The model differentiates between food groups, food production systems, levels of food loss and waste as well as food origin. Results show substantial variations in the spatial extent of metropolitan foodsheds and self-sufficiency levels between the case study regions London, Berlin, Milan and Rotterdam, depending on population density and distribution, geographical factors and proximity to neighbouring urban agglomerations. The application of the model as a food planning tool offers a new perspective on the potential role of metropolitan regions for strengthening urban self-sufficiency. It also enables the ex-ante assessment of spatial consequences of changes within metropolitan food systems, on both demand and supply sides.

In particular, we discuss possible dietary and consumption changes, but also production and supply chain alternatives.

It is argued, that beyond the reduction of urban food insecurity the reshaping of urban food systems by linking urban areas with regional food production brings about manifold benefits, such as enhanced social participation and inclusion, ecological embeddedness and reduction of food miles, and regional agricultural competitiveness.

It is increasingly acknowledged that urban consumption centres benefit from being connected to their peri-urban and rural agricultural production areas within a wider metropolitan territory. Studying foodsheds is thus a major field of food system research. They are understood here as the territory around urban areas which is required to feed the (urban) population and which represents the area of interaction between urban consumption and periurban production.

It is only recently that urban (food) demands, lifestyle and business are considered ‘gamechangers’ with regard to the notion of rurality, agricultural supply and landscape character near cities (Zasada et al., 2019). .

Table 4 Source: Ghisellini and Ulgiati, 2020

5.3.3. FOOD IDENTITY Definition: Food identities provide a representation of the diversity of place based cultures who self organize within the city Food scape.

Foodscapes are defined as physical, organizational, and socio-cultural spaces in which inhabitants encounter food, and food-related issues.

The interaction of different Food Identities determine the overall culture of the places where the Humana Communitas lives, evident in food related behavioural patterns and food experiences. Being a multidisciplinary topic, an all-encompassing awareness of Food Identities is not yet available. Independent solutions for sustainable urban food systems are embedded in nutrition, agriculture, sociology, and economics disciplines. Food Identities is a concept that does not belong to a specific discipline, even if the study is largely embedded in anthropology. Food Identity draws its meaning in contexts of otherness, i.e. in comparison with other cultures, hence, profiling different food identities and how they interact in a given space can help face the challenges that emerge from otherness, where food can be a powerful catalyst to bridge differences. By reconciling this divide imposed by otherness, city planners, policy makers, communities, as well as people who directly work with food production, distribution and consumption can devise sustainable strategies meeting people’s more nuanced needs.

As borders continue to become less well defined, we need to find a way to better honour and support people and their cultures. People are increasingly defining and redefining themselves through the food they consume and the ways in which they consume it.

Few studies have been published on food identity innovation area.

One of this is that carried out by Bisogni et al. (2002). They sought to develop a theoretical understanding (conceptual model) of identities related to eating, highlighting the importance for many professionals and policy makers to advocate changes in food practices among Americans for health, safety, or environmental reasons. However, yet success in achieving these planned changes is often elusive.

Food choice has long been recognized as a process that involves psychological, social, cultural, economic, and biological forces.

Over a lifetime, these forces interact with a person’s life course events and experiences to result in individual preferences (such as taste) and other considerations (such as convenience or monetary considerations), which shape food behavior. Identity is generally considered to involve the mental self-images that a person assigns to herself/himself based on everyday interactions with people, groups, and objects. Identities reflect multiple layers of meaning that are cultural, structural, social, and individual in origin. Use of food has long been recognized as a way that a person assigns identity to herself/himself and others by what is considered edible, types of foods liked and disliked, and methods of preparation. Additional research addressing the theoretical aspects of identity related to eating is needed.

The conceptual model, elaborated using a grounded theory approach and open-ended, in depth interviews to examine identity and eating from the perspectives of adults, is reported in figure 14.

Figure 14 – Conceptual model for the relationship of identities to eating Source: Bisogni et al., 2002

Quintero-Angel et al. (2019) demonstrated the role of the cultural transmission of food habits in identity formation and social cohesion, based upon an ethnographic case study in an area of Colombia. This study presented the cultural transmission of food habits, culinary practices, and their relationship with the inhabited environment.

Likewise, this article presented a temporal-spatial contextualization of the locality and some oral testimonies that reveal how dietary practices constitute an important element in socialization, social cohesion, and the transmission of knowledge from generation to generation. From an anthropological perspective, Contreras and Gracia Arnaiz (2005) characterized food as a social act, an aspect of people’s intimate life that goes beyond biology and is interrelated with culture, that is, a biocultural phenomenon. The cultural transmission of food habits is extremely relevant, given that it brings cohesion to and forges the identity of human groups. This transmission occurs in daily life based upon a wide variety of practices that include everything from food provision to food conservation, preparation, consumption, and even its disposal.

Thus, food constitutes an important element among community members because sharing allows them to strengthen the ties that generate social cohesion. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that many social and religious occasions that mark individuals’ and communities’ life cycles are accompanied by festive meals. The latter, facilities social interaction and social ties that are created between the members who take part. Nonetheless, dietary practices are

framed by a socio-cultural and historical context that is the product of social and environmental transformation. In the 20th century, these changes included the accelerated process of urbanization, changes in rural-urban relationships, and changes in lifestyle, in traditional knowledge and the homogenization of diet, among others with differentiated impacts in different societies.

Daily diet and the transmission of food practices are framed within a socio-cultural context that is influenced by the historical moment in which each society finds itself. Therefore, food in today’s societies cannot be understood outside of the dynamics of its globalization, development models, industrialization, rural-urban migrations, urbanization, among others, that influence and transform food practices.

Hackel et al., 2018 tested and found support for the novel idea that social identities can shape the evaluation of food pleasantness.

The question research derived from the awareness that food consumption has been deeply tied to cultural groups. Past models of food preference have assumed that social concerns are dissociated from basic appetitive qualities—such as tastiness— in food choice.

The results suggest social identity may shape evaluations of food pleasantness, both through long-term motivational components of identification as well as short-term identity salience. Thus, the influence of social identity on cognition appears to extend beyond social evaluation, to hedonic experience.

Figure 15- Organic food identity model Source: Hansen et al., 2018

Hansen et al., 2018 developed a baseline model specifying expected relationships between consumer motivations (health, environmental, and social consciousness), organic food identity, and organic food behavior. The health consciousness has a higher positive influence on organic food identity with higher levels of all four investigated personal values. When openness to change is low, health consciousness has a positive effect on intentional organic food behavior through organic food identity, whereas social consciousness has a negative effect on intentional organic food behavior through organic food identity. Our results provide guidance to those seeking to segment organic food markets based on consumers’ motivations and values. Consumer choices for organic foods are of interest to food policy-makers for many reasons, including that (a) the production of organic foods involves the use of environmentally sustainable techniques, which may positively impact ecological systems and bio- and (b) that links between organic food behavior and value elements such as fairness and human health are often suggested (Figure 15).

Finally, Alho (2015) studied the effect of social bonding and identity on the decision to invest in food production. It is known the recent and growing trend of consumer to be interested in locally produced food. Like the preference for local in food consumption decisions, an individual may be motivated to support the local community by participating with investment capital. In this context, there is a rather scarce literature on how identities shape financial decisions.

According to our results, individuals who identify themselves as rural are more positively disposed to investing in firms that operate in the food production chain. The findings of the study have managerial implications for the marketing of financial instruments in general, suggesting that familiarity and subjective values are powerful drivers of financial decisions.

5.3.4 FOOD DIPLOMACY Definition: food has been a factor in diplomacy since the very inception of the institution of diplomacy and the modern nationstate in the seventeenth century. Throughout history, states have competed (and at times fought) for control of and access to food and other natural resources, such as water and energy, because they are essential to human survival and inextricably tied to political and economic development. In general, the term food diplomacy refers to the use of a country’s food resources to influence global food markets and to influence international political and economic relations beyond the food market. Using food resources to influence food markets involves goals associated with the functional and structural aspects of the world food economy and the international trade in food, such as increasing the efficiency of food production, meeting minimum levels of food consumption, stabilizing food prices, and managing the disposal and distribution of surpluses. It is this dimension of food diplomacy that deals most explicitly with questions of food security and the policy differences between the major “food exporters” and food importers, particularly the poor “food-deficit” countries in the developing world. Using food resources to influence international relationships beyond international food markets involves other foreign policy goals, such as advancing geostrategic interests abroad, increasing economic cooperation or strengthening political relations with another country, and punishing or sanctioning adversaries. This dimension of food diplomacy is

much more controversial because it can be at odds with international humanitarian principles and the goal of world food security. As a practical matter, it is impossible to separate the two dimensions of food diplomacy. There are political and economic consequences of food transfers, as there are for other commodities, such as oil. Even food aid is politicized. During the cold war, for example, the United States cancelled 17 million tons of grain sales to the Soviet Union as a form of punishment for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and temporarily halted food shipments to Bangladesh because it had traded jute with Cuba. Food has been a key element of efforts by the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Where communities can drive change, governments and policymakers can drive larger structures. It is and will continue to be their responsibility to look towards the future, identify challenges and implement strong solutions to challenges both known and unknown.

Diplomacy as conventionally understood is the art of managing interpersonal relations, typically international relations by government officials. This intimately ties it to politics (Grech-Madin et al., 2018). Diplomacy itself is often described as the art and practice of conducting international relations, and is defined as a tool or an instrument by which states implement their foreign policy and articulate and defend their national interests. In this sense diplomacy can be seen as the means by which a state manages relationships with relevant actors (Ruckert et al., 2016) Most of the academic studies focused on water, energy or environmental diplomacy rather than food diplomacy. Nevertheless, there are some similarities that can be used to delve into the topic of food diplomacy.

Water diplomacy is a multi-disciplinary concept that draws on technical, political, and socio-economic knowledge; located at the intersection of science, policy, and practice, and including both state and non-state actors. Water diplomacy is an approach that enables a variety of stakeholders to assess ways to contribute to finding solutions for joint management of shared freshwater resources (Klimes et al.

(2019). Consequently, water diplomacy is not about negotiating on conflict issues; rather, it helps establish relationships to (re)build trust between conflict-prone parties (Barua, 2018). In doing so it helps prevent further conflicts and make change more sustainable.

Adopting a broader definition of water diplomacy, inclusive of both inter and intra-state interactions, requires engagement and inclusion of a wide array of stakeholders within water diplomacy processes to achieve and maintain effective water cooperation.

The actors involved in multi-track water diplomacy can comprise various groups of state and non-state actors. From academics and organisations, there is a common understanding in water diplomacy of the relevance to include the interests of the multiple dimensions and actors in cooperation processes. Furthermore, while the value of a water diplomacy framework in addressing water conflicts has been recognised in the literature, there is still a need to identify and promote additional initiatives on the ground (Salmoral et al., 2019).

To move beyond a water management focus, there is currently a growing need to better acknowledge the interdependencies between water, energy and food systems, where changes in their demand, policies and management inevitably have effects on the other systems and the broader environment - under what has been called the water energy- food (WEF) nexus. Such a nexus approach could be defined as a systematic process for both analysis and policy-making to unpack the interdependencies between water, energy, food and other linked systems, with the final aim of promoting cross-sectoral

integration sustainability, synergies and resource use efficiency.

From a governance point of view, a nexus approach presents a method to deal with the integration and interdependencies of the management of natural resources across sectors and actors. The

enriched negotiations arising from a nexus approach can facilitate benefits sharing in water diplomacy due to the broader exchange of experiences across several natural resources systems (Figure 16).

Figure 16 – Schematic diagram of water, energy and food interdependencies Source: Salmoral et al., 2019

Grech-Madin et al. (2018) proposed three tools that collectively speak to the political, multilevel, and normative nature of water diplomacy. The first tool is to compile a ‘‘norm inventory” of existing political norms around water governance; the second tool is to use ethnography and field data, which illuminates the political, social and cultural backgrounds of sub-state water users; the third tool is to use disaggregated and georeferenced data to shed light on variations of water and conflict risk within countries. Taken together, these analytical tools provide a multi-faceted political gauge of the dynamics of water diplomacy, and add vital impetus to develop water diplomacy across multiple levels of policy engagement.

Although there is no exact definition, energy diplomacy pertains to government-related foreign activities that aim to ensure a country’s energy security while also promoting business opportunities related to the energy sector (Griffiths, 2019). Among the set of foreign policy tools that can be leveraged to support a country’s energy interests during a global energy transition, diplomacy is one of the most important and can be either bilateral or multilateral in scope. Large scale transformation of the energy system to one predominantly based on clean energy will certainly require aligning the interests of multiple parties through multilateral diplomacy.

Global energy governance is particularly challenging, however, because energy governance most often lies within national borders.

This bounded notion of energy governance creates a “paradox of sovereignty” whereby countries fail to act collectively despite the fact that globalization of energy markets increasingly diminishes their control over their individual energy interests. Although global energy governance is being pursued by a variety of intergovernmental organizations, clubs, forums, networks, partnerships, multilateral institutions and United Nations entities, the potential for strong governance remains unrealized due to fragmentation of the actors involved and their genuinely different interests.

Consequently, it is more important to foster bilateral energy diplomacy with countries that can provide security of domestic energy supply, markets for the long-term monetization of hydrocarbon resources and support for economic diversification. These strategic relations have energy at the core but should extend to joint investment and science and technology collaboration in order to have maximum value (Griffiths, 2019).

Global health diplomacy describes the practices by which governments and non-state actors attempt to coordinate and orchestrate global policy solutions to improve global health. it refers more generally to the act, practice, or field of the phenomenon, and because it captures these three dimensions has best been defined as “policy-shaping processes through which States, intergovernmental organizations, and non- State actors negotiate responses to health challenges or utilize health concepts or mechanisms in policy-shaping and negotiation strategies to achieve other political, economic, or social objectives”. Health or medical diplomacy tends to refer more narrowly to the specific practice or engagement of a particular state (Ruckert et al., 2016).

5.3.5 PROSPERITY Definition: prosperity is a term of great power that needs to be better understood. Prosperity is not isolated to financial gain but needs to grow to encompass important components including emotional, physical, mental and cultural prosperity. Our understanding of prosperity needs to evolve to carry the weight that it requires. In this new integrated approach to prosperity, we must rethink the indicators and generators of well-being and determine how food and nutrition can act as a tool to create new prosperity.

This new approach is well stressed by Moore, 2015. The author argued that “Negotiations around Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development agenda should go beyond just re-writing goals and targets that adhere to ‘sustaining’ the same old economic and social models. Instead, societies and governments should take this as an opportunity to advance more radical conceptual and practical approaches that challenge this reductive understanding of ‘sustainability’.” Consequently, it “should turn our attention to prosperity rather than to development per se, recognising the critical role political and social innovation should have in unleashing individuals’ potential to flourishing in a context of finite resources. The interwoven, interdependent and ever-evolving nature of socio-ecological systems, together with the uncertainties and ‘unknowns’ that characterise contemporary reality, questions the relevance of one-size-fits-all goals.

There is no single route to prosperity; diversity of objectives is essential and fundamental. Learning from initiatives in the Global South, such as the case of agroecology, might pave the way towards this paradigm shift”.

The concept of prosperity is explored also by Assa (2019). He analysed “the apparent gap between the human development (HD) approachconcerned with the expansion of individual capabilities-and some of the broader aspects of development-such as social and ecological outcomes-outlined in Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development”. He proposed “a bridge between micro-capabilities and macro-phenomena based on the idea of the world as a complex system. This view supplements HD’s focus on the capabilities of individual agents with two classes of emergent functionalities. Relational functionalitiesemerging from interactions among people (and institutions)-and systemic functionalities-emerging from interactions between people/ societies and nature. Both are emergent phenomena which cannot be derived from the agents’ individual capabilities and only have meaning (and can thus only be assessed) at the aggregate level (of either a society or ecology). As such, HD’s view of development as freedom is expanded to include development as harmony (in the social realm) and development as balance (in the ecological domain) (Assa, 2019).

The last three decades have seen significant progress in reducing poverty and boosting prosperity. Nevertheless, approximately 800 million people continue to live in extreme poverty (World Bank, 2017).

Moreover regional progress has been uneven, with Sub-Saharan Africa accounting for half of the world’s extreme poor. Therefore, much remains to be done in terms of international efforts to reach the target for 2030 as articulated under Sustainable Development Goal 1 (SDG 1), i.e. eradicate extreme poverty.

The food systems perspective reveals a large number (indeed an unmanageably large number) of plausible pathways, from the conventional Agricultural Research 4 Development investments in breeding and livestock improvement to food waste recycling and food policy research (Tomich et al., 2019) (Figure 17).

Specifically, there are three boxes: landscapes (including input supply

and farm-level production); value chain (including the transformation and commercialization of food); and, lifescapes (including the consumption of food with the relative positive effects). The investments in agricultural research for development (innovations) entrain effects across the value chain, with potentially large benefits for urban workers and food consumers as well. It is very important, in perspective, the role of food waste that already constitutes

resource base which may expand employment, entrepreneurial, and income opportunities for poor households in both rural and urban areas through expansion of labor-intensive recycling enterprises and other initiatives to reduce food system waste and convert waste into commercially-valuable resources; yet another possibility that emerges from a whole-food-system perspective.

Figure 17 – Food systems perspective Source: Tomich et al., 2019

Tomich et al. (2019) stressed that the “poverty” and the intended outcomes of development investments have become much richer over the past 25 years, incorporating more nuance regarding gender, community differences, and fundamental reconsideration of the meaning of poverty and prosperity that are not captured by simple head count income or even living standard measures.

In this context, Miller et al. (2020) underlined the important role of forests for prosperity. Despite their contributions, however, forests have remained peripheral in wider development policy and research. Mainstream development theory and practice have emphasized agriculture and migration as pathways through which rural populations may move out of poverty and as necessary precursors for broader-based economic growth.

Forests figure little if at all in a variety of influential studies on poverty dynamics and patterns of economic development across

countries. Forests are similarly underrepresented in development policy and investments. Aside from Goal 15 (‘‘Life on Land”) and a target within Goal 6 (‘‘Clean Water and Sanitation”), forests are largely absent from the United Nations’ (2015) Sustainable Development Goals.

Really, according to the authors, to increase understanding of forest-livelihood relationships, it is necessary explicitly taking a more expansive view can enable better accounting for the diverse ways forests contribute to human welfare, expand the constituency for forests, and inform policies to more sustainably manage forests within wider landscapes. They propose a framework based on the concept of prosperity, which draws particular attention to human well-being beyond economic and material dimensions (Figure 18) (Miller et al., 2020).

Figure 18 – A conceptual framework for analyzing forests as pathways to prosperity Source: Miller et al., 2020

According to Wang (2015), it is necessary to have “a more robust and flexible framework to develop the ‘City Prosperity Index’ (CPI), one which is able to connect indicators and analytical intelligence with the policy needs of urban planners and government strategists. The adoption of a more progressive and balanced agenda of ‘people-centred’ urban prosperity in the UNHabitat’s newly developed CPI has already led to a more holistic approach to integrating productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, and environmental sustainability into a coherent framework. Building on this international agenda, there is still scope to critically revise and improve the conceptual and methodological framework of the CPI, probably in an incremental manner, to make it a more tailored policy instrument that can truly address the different sets of challenges faced by cities in different regions under different socio-spatial contexts to achieve sustainable prosperity”.

Pittman et al., 2019 proposed “a collaborative community-led marine park concept that celebrates a city’s connection to the marine environment, enhances sustainable economic prosperity and enables communities to participate in activities that deepen understanding, value, care and enjoyment of the city seascape. A city marine park (CMP) is not a marine protected area because it does not have biodiversity and heritage protection or ecosystem governance as a primary goal and does not aim to restrict human activities. A CMP enables city communities to collaborate towards a shared vision of elevated status and value for the city seascape. A CMP considers socio-economic and geographical context, including land-sea connectivity, and is integrated within a coastal city’s strategic urban planning. They highlighted core themes of a CMP and the diverse and wide-ranging benefits from

coordinated activities that better connect the city community with its seascape. If co-created by the coastal city community and civic leaders, a CMP will form an enduring spatial nexus for progress toward healthy cities addressing multiple interlinked global sustainable development goals”.

Finally, as underlined by World Bank (2018), migration is the most effective way to reduce poverty and share prosperity. Indeed, not surprisingly, all development experiences and growth episodes in history have involved a reallocation of labor across space and sectors within countries. The document Policy Research Report (PRR), Moving for Prosperity: Global Migration and Labor Markets, is an attempt to address this tension between the academic research and the public discourse by focusing on the economic evidence. The World Bank (2018) suggests a labor market–oriented, economically motivated rationale to the political opposition to migration. AIt is known that some of the biggest gains come from the movement of people between countries. Migrants’ incomes increase three to six times when they move from lower- to higher-income countries. Global migration patterns lead to high concentrations of immigrants in certain places, industries, and occupations. In this perspective, to increase prosperity, It should be to ease the costs of shortterm dislocations of native-born workers and distribute more widely the economic benefits generated by labor mobility.

Proactive interventions to ease the pain and share the gain from immigration are essential to avoid draconian restrictions on immigration that will hurt everybody. Ignoring the massive economic gains of immigration would be akin to leaving billions of hundred dollar bills on the sidewalk.

5.4 SDGs and innovation areas World Bank (2017) published a very interesting and useful “Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals”. This document presents a visual and engaging guide to the challenges of the SDGs, to help policy makers, managers, and the public alike better understand them. The Atlas helps quantify progress, highlight some of the key issues, and identify the gaps that still remain. Thus, it

SDGs

provides the most recent data on each SDG at global level, and not only, some reported in the following table. This latter is the integration of SDGs with the vision of Future Food Institute across the proposed innovation areas for discovering the role of food in regenerating the Planet.

LINK TO THE INNOVATION AREAS Nearly 80% of the world’s poor live in rural areas and work mainly in agriculture. Access to food is a basic foundational element of creating overall prosperity. It is becoming increasingly important to invest in agricultural innovation and support new, disruptive and diverse solutions to current and future agricultural challenges. Policymakers will need to incorporate these innovative solutions into future policies to create a more robust, climate-smart ecosystem.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] There is enough food produced today to feed the global population yet around 800 million people are chronically undernourished.

Food diplomacy can play a crucial role in ensuring food security through the ethical and conscious distribution of sustainable and nutritionally rich food. This will be essential in achieving human prosperity and play a key role in maintaining individual food identity.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] [FOOD IDENTITY] [PROSPERITY] Malnutrition is the largest contributor to disease in the world. Over 4 billion people are either micronutrient deficient or overweight.

To secure both physical and mental health, it is not enough to merely ensure that individual caloric requirements are met. Food is our most basic form of medicine. It is essential to ensure that people have access to the correct micronutrients necessary for complete human health while supporting the continuation of an overall healthy lifestyle [PROSPERITY] [FOOD IDENTITY] Malnutrition, which affects nearly one in four children under age 5 worldwide, is associated with reduced school performance and impaired brain development.

To secure both health and prosperity, it is not enough to merely ensure that individuals receive sufficient caloric intake. It is essential to ensure that people have access to the correct micronutrients necessary to achieve complete human health.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] Women represent 43% of agricultural labor yet have unequal access to land, technology, markets, and other resources.

There is a clear and fundamental need to create inclusive policies that ensure fair and equal access to land and resources regardless of race, sex, belief, economic position or context.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] Today, food systems account for 70% of freshwater withdrawals.

Resource management will be essential as we progress towards a more sustainable food systems. Collectively, we will need to become more aware of the resources that we consume and install conscious measures to use them more efficiently. This will be key in building resilient climate-smart ecosystems.

[CLIMATE SMART ECO-SYSTEMS] [FOOD DIPLOMACY] Modern food systems consume around 30% of the world’s available energy and are heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

As we progress towards improved climate resilience, it will be essential to increase the diversity of our energy sources while decreasing their impact on the environment. This will need to be an integrated approach with green energy at its core. Our future, however, will not only be centered around producing more but also using less. We will need to shift away from unnecessary excess and adopt a circular approach that maximizes the efficiency of our resource utilization.

[CIRCULAR LIVING] [PROSPERITY]

SDGs

LINK TO THE INNOVATION AREAS Agriculture is the single largest employer in the world, employing around 60% of workers in less developed countries.

Innovation in agriculture should be applied such that it helps to facilitate ethical and conscious employment. It should serve to support communities while promoting complete human prosperity across all applicable contexts.

[PROSPERITY] Around 900 million people in rural communities, the majority of whom work in agriculture, don’t have access to electricity. [ A basic fundamental requirement of all future food systems will be access to electricity. This is important in ensuring economic and social prosperity to all players within the food system.

[FOOD IDENTITY] [PROSPERITY] Seven out of 10 people live in a country that has seen a rise in inequality in the last 30 years, Inequality shapes who have access to healthy foods.

Food diplomacy will be fundamental in guaranteeing equal access to all. Equality is a concept of widespread impact and it is an essential focal point to bring about positive change.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] [PROSPERITY] By 2030, nearly 60% of the world’s population will live in urban areas, changing the shape of consumer demand and increasing pressure on land and other resources.

As human populations continue to concentrate within cities, they will play an increasingly crucial role. Urban policies that encourage circular cities, human and economic prosperity, and inclusive diversity, need to be put in place.

[FOOD IDENTITY] [CIRCULAR LIVING] [PROSPERITY] [CLIMATE-SMART ECOSYSTEMS] Nearly one-third of global food production - 1.3 billion tons of food - is lost or wasted.

As we move towards more circular systems, it will be essential to increase our focus on points of inefficiency. We need to identify these areas and apply innovative solutions to reduce or remove them.

[FOOD IDENTITY] [CIRCULAR LIVING] Food systems are currently responsible for 20-30% of global greenhouse emissions. Inversely, climate change threatens to cut crop yields by over 25%.

Climate-smart ecosystems will require pointed action at reducing greenhouse emissions released into the environment. This will help to reduce the footprint of our food systems and its effects on climate change.

[CLIMATE SMART ECO-SYSTEMS] [CIRCULAR LIVING] Fish accounts for 17% of the global population’s intake of animal proteins. However, over 30% of the world’s fish stocks are overexploited.

Climate-smart ecosystems will require efforts across a diversity of environments. Conscious effort and applied innovation will be necessary to maintain and improve our marine environments, helping to secure food access to future generations.

[CLIMATE SMART ECO-SYSTEMS] Agriculture is the most significant driver of deforestation, contributing to a record global tree cover loss of 30 million hectares in 2016, an increase of 51% from 2015.

The development of climate-smart ecosystems will directly require recognition of the effects of deforestation on our environment and food systems. The reduction and reversal of deforestation, paired with innovative techniques that reduce agricultural footprint, will be necessary to build a robust and sustainable food system.

[CLIMATE SMART SYSTEMS] Increased food insecurity - 815 million undernourished people up from 777 million in 2015 - can be both a cause and consequence of conflict.

Conscious and inclusive future food systems can directly improve physical, mental, nutritional and economic prosperity. This is an important piece in reducing global conflict and unrest.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY] Partnerships are crucial to transforming food systems. Unlocking opportunities in food systems could be worth $2.3 trillion annually for the private sector by 2030.

Food diplomacy through international cooperation is necessary to stress the importance of cross-industry synergies. It is essential to take into account a diversity of perspectives and interests to ensure robust and inclusive food systems.

[FOOD DIPLOMACY]

CONCLUSIONS To implement the SDGs, for tackling multiple challenges that humankind is facing, policies need to take account of the interactions among them, because these latter may cause diverging results.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop tools to develop pathways that minimize negative interactions and enhance positive ones.

Future Food Institute recognized this problem and proposed a toolbox (THE EARTH REGENERATION TOOLBOX) based on food as transversal to the whole SDGs framework, specifically for food security and nutritional diversity, cultural diversity, ecological longterm stability, and climate-smart systems. Food can be a tool of

HUMANA COMMUNITAS

PLATFORMS

MODELS

METRICS

regeneration for the Earth for aspiring to a civil economy (Bruni and Zamagni, 2004), representing not only simple nourishment for people but also vehicle of values, culture, symbols and identity, sociality, inclusion and source of energy. This toolbox may be very important instrument for policymakers, food authorities, food managers, local governments, urban planners, scholars and others who are seeking solutions to environmental problems that require behavioral change.

The following table synthesized the connections existing among SDGs, the innovation areas and tools identified by the Future Food Institute for creating the above-mentioned connections.

CLIMATE-SMART ECOSYSTEMS

CIRCULAR LIVING

FOOD IDENTITY

FOOD DIPLOMACY

PROSPERITY

SDG 6 SDG 11 SDG 13 SDG 14 SDG 15

SDG 7 SDG 11 SDG 12 SDG 13

SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 9 SDG 11 SDG12

SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 4 SDG 5 SDG 6 SDG 10 SDG 16 SDG 17

SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 7 SGD 8 SDG 9 SDG 10 SDG 11

How might we empower communities to establish food sovereignty?

How might we instill a desire for circularity within citizens?

How might we recognize as fundamental human rights?

How might citiHow might we agzens encourage gregate and direct policy-makers to multiple impacts to design-conscious, ensure prosperity sustainable and resi- for both communilient food systems? ties and individuals?

How might we leveHow might we How might new How might innorage technologies to leverage new tools tools increase vative tools and measure the success and technologies to access to personal technologies form of new integrated measure and prio- food identities and platforms that lead platforms? ritize opportunities ultimately facili- to integrated modern for circularity? tate free cultural food policies? flow?

How might market infrastructures ensure physical, financial and social access?

How might we How might we idenHow might we How might we better incorporate agricultify and intercept ensure agricultural understand social tural innovations points of inefficieninnovations and sciences to measure and novel production cy to create effecti- novel production the effects of momethods into food ve circular models methods honor dern food policies? systems to improve within cities? and support food logistics efficiency identities? while decreasing the environmental impact?

How might we rethink existing business models and design new ones to place prosperity at the center?

How might we How might we analyze and tran- develop indexes/inslate novel data to dicators that allow facilitate incremen- to effectively track tal improvements in circularity? the food system?

How might we recognize the sharing of food, knowledge, and resources as indicators for food system resilience?

How might we better How might we deunderstand social fine prosperity and sciences to measure measure its impact? the effects of modern food policies?

Food diplomacy involved the majority of SDGs (8) as well as Prosperity (7). From the analysis of the scientific literature it emerged that few are the studies conducted on these aspects: so it becomes very important to foster and better examine these approaches.

Conversely, both climate-smart ecosystems and circular living, though they involve few SDGs (respectively 5 and 4), are those areas most studied by scholars because enclosing several elements for developing a sustainable and regenerative pathway for Planet.

Two are the SDGs more shared among innovations areas: no. 2 (Zero Hunger) and no. 11 (Sustainable and smart communities).

This indicates, on the one hand, the important role of urban centres.

Certainly, they have to be renovated in smart sustainable cities or smart food cities, where the advanced technologies of Industry 4.0 can help them to reduce their impact on the environment through the food. On the other hand, this indicates the main role of agro-food

sector for hunger and poverty eradication as well as for preserving the communities identities, strengthening the ties that generate social cohesion.

A transversal approach that helps the transition towards sustainable development, using SDGs and the EARTH REGENERATION TOOLBOX of Future Food Institute, is the Ecosystem based Approach (EbA), above all if it is applied to cities (SDG 11 and Circular living/Climatesmart ecosystems). During the journey of regeneration and discovery, specifically the summer school in NY focused on SDG no. 11, FFI codesigned along with the participants the idea to adapt this approach to its toolbox. This was also confirmed in the following phase when FFI meet stakeholders for the toolbox validation.

The figure n. 19 showed how EbA could be applied within cities for promoting actions that integrate the local development and environmental policies (food diplomacy).

ECOSYSTEM BASED ADAPTATION APPROACH WITHIN CITIES

PROSPERITY

ECONOMIC CO-BENEFIT

FOOD IDENTITY

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CO-BENEFIT

CIRCULAR LIVING

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC CO-BENEFIT

CLIMATE-SMART ECOSYSTEMS

EVIRONMENTAL CO-BENEFIT

FOOD DIPLOMACY FOOD DIPLOMACY URBAN PLANNING AND POLICIES Figure 19 – A conceptual framework of EbA with the Earth Regeneration toolbox Source: Our elaboration

EbA offers the advantage of promoting “no regrets” interventions, and potentially delivering multiple economic, social and environmental co-benefits that go beyond climate adaptation. These co-benefits include, among others, biodiversity conservation (climate-smart ecosystems) through enhanced habitat conditions; climate mitigation through increased carbon sequestration (circular living; climate-smart ecosystems); conservation of traditional knowledge, livelihood and practices of local communities (food identity); improved recreation and tourism opportunities (prosperity); enhanced food security (prosperity; food identity).

Food is a global language, being a highly interdisciplinary sector; the first commodity and primary form of cultural expression; it joins people (all), industries and countries. Agro-food actors can really make a difference by showing that they know how to take care of something more than just profit.

These are topics of vital importance for the fate of humanity: by rethinking agro-food systems we can save the world.

REFERENCES 1.

Alho E., 2015, The effect of social bonding and identity on the decision to invest in food production, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 59(2015) 47–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.007 2.

Assa Jacob, 2019, Rethinking Human Development in the Context of the SDGs, UNDP/HDRO. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/335665935_Rethinking_Human_Development_in_the_Context_of_the_SDGs (Accessed 14 January 2020).

3.

Barua A., 2018, Water diplomacy as an approach to regional cooperation in South Asia: A case from the Brahmaputra basin, Journal of Hydrology 567 (2018) 60–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.09.056 4.

Bisogni C. A., Connors M., Devine C.M., Sobal J., 2002, Who We Are and How We Eat: A Qualitative Study of Identities in Food Choice, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Volume 34 Number 3, May June 2002, 128 – 139 5.

Bob H., Mary L.K., 2011. Green Index in 1991-1992: Environmental Quality Evaluation in American States (in Chinese). Beijing Normal University Press.

6.

Bringezu S., Schutz H., Mooll, S., 2003. Rational for and interpretation of economy -wide materials flow analysis and derived indicators. Ind. Econ. 7, 43-64.

7.

Brown O., 2008, Migration and Climate Change, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Research Migrations Series no. 31, 17 route des Morillons 1211 Geneva 19 Switzerland, ISSN 1607-338X, Available at: https://www.iom.cz/files/Migration_and_Climate_Change_-_IOM_Migration_Research_Series_No_31. pdf (Accessed 05 January 2020) 8.

Bruni L., Zamagni S., 2004, Economia civile. Efficienza, equità, felicità pubblica, Il Mulino, pp. 315.

9.

Campbell-Johnston K., ten Cate J., Elfering-Petrovic M., Gupta J., 2019, City level circular transitions: Barriers and limits in Amsterdam, Utrecht and The Hague, Journal of Cleaner Production 235 (2019) 1232-1239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.106 10.

Christis M., Athanassiadis A., Vercalsteren A., 2019, Implementation at a city level of circular economy strategies and climate change mitigation e the case of Brussels, Journal of Cleaner Production 218 (2019) 511-520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.180 11.

Contreras, J., & Gracia Arnaiz, M. (2005). Alimentación y cultura: Perspectivas antropológicas. Barcelona (España): Ariel.

12.

Cornell J. D., Quintas-Soriano C., Running K., Castro A. J., 2019, Examining concern about climate change and local environmental changes from an ecosystem service perspective in the Western U.S, Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 221–231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.021 13.

Corona B., Shen L., Reike D., Rosales Carren J., Worrell E., 2019, Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics, Resources, Conservation & Recycling 151 (2019) 104498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498 14.

Cortinovis C., Geneletti D., 2019, A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities, Ecosystem Services 38 (2019) 100946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100946 15.

Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S.V., O’ Neill R., Paruelo J.G., Raskin R., Sutton P., van den Belt M., 1997, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387 (6630) (1997), 253-260.

16. de Amorim W. S., Deggau A. B., do Livramento Gonalves G., da Silva Neiva S., Prasath A. R., Salgueirinho J.B.., de Andrade Guerra O., 2019, Urban challenges and opportunities to promote sustainable food security through smart cities and the 4th industrial revolution, Land Use Policy 87 (2019) 104065, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104065) 17. den Besten, J., 2019. Vertical farming development; The Dutch approach. Plant Factory Using Artificial Light. Elsevier, pp. 307–317. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813973-8.00027-0 18.

EC-JRC (European Commission – Joint Research Centre), 2009. Carbon footprint - what it is and how to measure it. Environ. Manag. 3, 1–2.

EC, European Commission, 2018. Circular economy. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm (Accessed 03 19.

January 2020) 20.

EEA, 2012. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe Challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies. European Environmental Agency. EEA Technical report No 2/2012, 1-143.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), 2015a. Growth within: a Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe available: https://www.

21. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/growth-within-a-circular-economy-vision-for-a-competitiveeurope 22.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), 2015b. Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers, Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. org/publications (Accessed 4 January 2020) 23.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), 2018. China-EU agreement paves way for global adoption of circular economy. available: https://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/news/china-eu-agreement-paves-way-forglobal-adoption-of-circular-economy (Accessed 4 January 2020) Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the Circular Economy, Vol-1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.

24. org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular- Economy-vol.1.pdf. (Accessed 10 January 2020).

25.

ENEL and Symbola Foundation, 2018. 100 Italian Circular Economy Stories, Available at: http://www.symbola.net/assets/files/100storie_DEF_Web_ pag%20singole_25-05-18_1527247969.pdf (Accessed 04/01/2020).

Enel, 2018, ENEL Circular KPI Model, Nota metodologica, pp. 12, Available at: http://www.regione.lazio.it/rl/apea/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/ENEL_ 26. circular-KPI-model.pdf (Accessed 17 January 2020) 27.

Esmaeilian B., Wang B., Lewis K., Duarte F., Ratti C., Behdad S., 2018, The future of waste management in smart and sustainable cities: A review and concept paper, Waste Management 81 (2018) 177–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.047 28.

European Commission, 2018. Measuring Progress Towards Circular Economy in the European Union – Key Indicators for a Monitoring Framework SWD(2018) 17 Final. European Commission, Strasbourg.

29.

Fabbrizzi S., Maggino F., Marinelli N., Menghini S., Ricci C., Sacchelli S., 2016, Sustainability and food: a text analysis of the scientific literature, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 8 (2016 ) 670 – 679, doi: 10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.077 30.

Fan Y. V., Lee C. T., Lim J. S., Klemes J.J., Le P.T. K., 2019, Cross-disciplinary approaches towards smart, resilient and sustainable circular economy,

Journal of Cleaner Production 232 (2019) 1482-1491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.266 31.

Fang, W., 2019. Total performance evaluation in plant factory with artificial lighting. Plant Factory Using Artificial Light. Elsevier, pp. 155–165. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813973-8.00014-2 32.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2017 , “A1 Introducing Climate-Smart Agriculture”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Roma. Available at: http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/concept/module-a1introducing-csa/a1-overview/en/?type=111 (Accessed 30 December 2019) 33.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009, How to Feed the World in 2050, Forum at FAO Headquarters, Rome, 12-13 October 2009. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf (Accessed 08 January 2020) 34.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2018, FAO’s work on climate change, United Nations Climate Change Conference 2018, Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2607EN/ca2607en.pdf (Accessed 08 January 2020) 35.

FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Rome, ISSN 2522-722X (online), Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf (Accessed 08 January 2020).

Farne Fratini C., Georg S., Søgaard Jørgensen M., 2019, Exploring circular economy imaginaries in European cities: A research agenda for the governance 36. of urban sustainability transitions, Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 974-989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.193 37.

Geneletti D., Zardo L., 2016, Ecosystem-based adaptation in cities: An analysis of European urban climate adaptation plans, Land Use Policy, 50(2016) 38-47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.003 38.

Geng, Y., Fu, J., Sarkis, J., Xue, B., 2012, Towards a national circular economy indicator system in China: an evaluation and critical analysis. J. Clean.

Prod. 23, 216-224.

39.

Ghisellini P., Ulgiati S., 2020, Circular economy transition in Italy. Achievements, perspectives and , Constraints, Journal of Cleaner Production 243 (2020) 118360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118360 40.

Giffinger R., Fertner C., Kramar H., Kalasek R., Pichler-Milanović N., Meijers E., 2007. Smart Cities: Ranking of European medium-sized Cities. Centre of Regional Science (SRF), Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria. Available at. http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf) Gil J. D.B., Vassilis D., van Ittersum M., Reidsma P., Doelman J. C., E. van Middelaar C., van Vuuren D. P., 2019, Reconciling global sustainability targets and 41. local action for food production and climate change mitigation, Global Environmental Change 59 (2019) 101983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101983 42.

Gosnell H., Gill N., Voyer M., 2019, Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture, Global Environmental Change 59 (2019) 101965, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101965 43.

Grant M., 2015, A Food Systems Approach for Food and Nutrition Security, Sight and life, vol. 29(1), 2015, 87-90.

44.

Grech-Madin C., Döring S., Kim K., Swain A., 2018, Negotiating water across levels: A peace and conflict ‘‘Toolbox” for water Diplomacy, Journal of Hydrology 559 (2018) 100–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.008 45.

Griffiths S., 2019, Energy diplomacy in a time of energy transition, Energy Strategy Reviews 26 (2019) 100386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100386 46.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Gothenburg 47.

Hackel L.M., Coppin G., Wohl M. J.A. , Van Bavel J. J., 2018, From groups to grits: Social identity shapes evaluations of food pleasantness, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 74 (2018) 270–280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.007 48.

Haile K. K., Tirivayi N., Tesfaye W., 2019, Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia, Ecosystem Services 39 (2019) 100964, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100964 49.

Haines-Young, R., Potschin M., 2010, The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G & C.L.J. Frid (eds.): Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, British Ecological Society, 110-139.

50.

Hansen T., Sørensen M. I., Riewerts Eriksen M.L., 2018, How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior, Food Policy 74 (2018) 39–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.11.003 51.

Harris S., Weinzettel J., Bigano A., Kallmen A., Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumptionbased emission accounting Methods, in press, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119206 52.

Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2019, Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, (United Nations, New York, 2019).

53.

International Standards Organization (ISO), 2018. ISO 37122 – sustainable development in communities – indicators for Smart Cities. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:37122:dis:ed-1:v1:en) 54.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2018, Global warming of 1.5 °C, Printed October 2018 by the IPCC, Switzerland, ISBN 978-92-9169151-7 Available at: https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf (Accessed 04 January 2020) 55.

IPCC, 2019a, Climate Change and Land, Chapter 5: Food Security, Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL. pdf (Accessed 08 January 2020).

56.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2019b, Climate Change and Land, Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ (Accessed 07 January 2020) 57.

Kai Su, Dao-zhi Wei, Wen-xiong Lin, 2020, Evaluation of ecosystem services value and its implications for policy making in China – A case study of Fujian province, Ecological Indicators, Volume 108, January 2020, 105752.

Kirchherr J., Piscicelli L., Bour R., Kostense-Smit E., Muller J., Huibrechtse-Truijens A., Hekkert M., 2018, Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From 58. the European Union (EU), Ecological Economics, Volume 150, August 2018, 264-272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.028 59.

Kirchherr J., Reike D., Hekkert M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.

60.

Klimes M., Michel D., Yaari E., Restiani P., 2019, Water diplomacy: The intersect of science, policy and practice, Journal of Hydrology 575 (2019) 1362– 1370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.049 Kona A., Bertoldi P., Monforti-Ferrario F., Rivas S., Dallemand J. F., 2018, Covenant of mayors signatories leading the way towards 1.5 degree global 61. warming pathway, Sustainable Cities and Society 41 (2018) 568–575, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.017

62.

Lemaire A., Limbourg S., 2019, How can food loss and waste management achieve sustainable development goals?, Journal of Cleaner Production 234 (2019) 1221e1234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.226 Letcher T. M., 2019, Why do we have global warming?, Chapter 1, Managing global warming – An interface of Technology and Human Issues, Academics 63. press, Elsevier, Editors: Trevor Letcher, 3 – 15, ISBN: 9780128141045 Li, X.X., Liu, Y.M., Song, T., 2014. The measurement of human green development index (in Chinese). Soc. Sci. China 6, 69-208.

64.

65.

Lombardi M., Loliola E., Tricase C., Rana R., 2017, Assessing the urban carbon footprint: An overview, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66C(2017), 43-52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.005.

Lombardi M., Loliola E., Tricase C., Rana R., 2018, Toward urban environmental sustainability: The carbon footprint of Foggia’s municipality, Journal of 66.

Cleaner production, 186, 10 June 2018, 534–543, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.158 67.

Lombardi M., Pazienza P., Rana R., 2016, The EU environmental-energy policy for urban areas: the Covenant of Mayors, the ELENA Program and the role of ESCos, Energy Policy 93 (2016) 33-40, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.040.

Lu Y., 2017a. Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

68. jii.2017.04.005 Lu C., Grundy S., 2017b. Urban agriculture and vertical farming. Encycl. Sustain. Technol. 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.1018469.

8 70.

Lyu R., Clarke K. C., Zhang J., Jia X., Feng J., Li J., 2019, The impact of urbanization and climate change on ecosystem services: A case study of the city belt along the Yellow River in Ningxia, China, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 77 (2019) 101351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.101351 Macke J., Rubim Sarate J.A., de Atayde Moschen S., 2019, Smart sustainable cities evaluation and sense of community, Journal of Cleaner Production 71.

239 (2019) 118103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118103 72.

Maes J., Liquete C., Teller A., Erhard M., Paracchini M.L., Barredo J. I., Grizzetti B., Cardoso A., Somma F., Petersen J.E., Meiner A., Royo Gelabert E., Zal N., Kristensen P., Bastrup-Birk A., Biala K., Piroddi C., Egoh B., Degeorges P., Fiorina C., Santos-Martín F., Naruševičius V., Verboven J., Pereira H. M., Bengtsson J., Gocheva K., Pedroso C. M., Snäll T., Estreguil C., San-Miguel-Ayanz J., Pérez-Soba M., Grêt-Regamey A., Lillebø A. I., Abdul Malak D., Condé S., Moen J., Czúcz B.,.

Drakou E. G., Zulian G., Lavalle C., 2016, An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Ecosystem Services 17 (2016) 14–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023 2212-0416/ Maes J., Teller A., Erhard M., Grizzetti B., Barredo J.I., Paracchini M.L., Condé .S, Somma F., Orgiazzi A., Jones A., Zulian A., Vallecilo S., Petersen 73.

J.E., Marquardt D., Kovacevic V., Abdul Malak D., Marin A.L., Czúcz B., Mauri A., Loffler P., BastrupBirk A., Biala K., Christiansen T., Werner B., 2018, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An analytical framework for ecosystem condition. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Available at: https://catalogue.biodiversity.europa.eu/uploads/document/file/1673/5th_MAES_report.pdf (Accessed 9 January 2020).

Maye D., 2019, Smart food city: Conceptual relations between smart city planning, urban food systems and innovation theory, City, Culture and Society 74.

16 (2019) 18–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.12.001 Mccarthy U., Uysal I., Badia-Melis R., Mercier S., O’Donnell C., Anastasia Ktenioudaki A., 2018, Global food security – Issues, challenges and technological 75. solutions, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 77, July 2018, 11-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.002 McDougall R., Kristiansen P., Rader R., 2019, Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires judicious management of inputs to achieve 76. sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (1), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809707115.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for 77.

Assessment, Island Press, Washington DC (2005), Miller D. C., Reem H., 2020, Forests as pathways to prosperity: Empirical insights and conceptual Advances, World Development 125 (2020) 104647, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104647 Moore H. L., 2015, Global Prosperity and Sustainable Development Goals, Journal of International Development 27(6), DOI: 10.1002/jid.3114 79.

Moraga G., Huysveld S., Mathieux F., Blengini G.A., Alaerts L., Van Acker K., de Meester S., Dewulf J., 2019, Circular economy indicators: What do they 80. measure?, Resources, Conservation & Recycling 146 (2019) 452–461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045 Munang R., Thiaw I., Alverson K., Mumba M., Li, J., Rivington M., 2013, Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to 81. buffering climate change impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (1), 67–71).

82.

Nilsson M., Griggs D., Visbeck M., 2016, Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. News 534, 320.

Nitoslawski S.A., Galle N. J., Van Den Bosch C. K., Steenberg J.W.N., 2019, Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and 83. turning points for smart urban forestry, Sustainable Cities and Society 51 (2019) 101770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101770 84.

OECD, 2018. Re-circle, Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Projects available: http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/ brochurerecircle-resource-efficiency-and-circular-economy.pdf Olivier D.W., 2019, Urban agriculture promotes sustainable livelihoods in Cape Town. Dev. South. Afr. 36 (1), 17–32. https://doi.

85. org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1456907.

86.

Parchomenko A., Nelen D., Gillabel J., Rechberger H., Measuring the circular economy - A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63 metrics, Journal of Cleaner Production 210 (2019) 200e216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.357 Pedersen Zari M., Blaschke P. M., Jackson B., Komugabe-Dixson A., Livesey C., Loubser D. I., Martinez-Almoyna Gual C., Maxwell D., Rastandeh A., 87.

Renwick J., Weaver S., Archie K. M., Devising urban ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) projects with developing nations: A case study of Port Vila, Vanuatu, Ocean and Coastal Management, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105037 88.

Petit-Boix A., Leipold S., 2018, Circular economy in cities: Reviewing how environmental research aligns with local practices, Journal of Cleaner Production 195 (2018) 1270-1281, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.281 89.

Phillips J. D., 2019, State factor network analysis of ecosystem response to climate change, Ecological Complexity 40 (2019) 100789, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2019.100789 Pittman S.J., L.D. Rodwell, R.J.Shellock, M. Williams, M.J. Attrill, J. Bedford, K. Curry, S. Fletcher, S.C. Gall, J. Lowther, A. McQuatters-Gollop, K.L. Moseley, 90.

S.E. Rees, 2019, Marine parks for coastal cities: A concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity and sustainable city living, Marine Policy, Volume 103,

May 2019, 160-171.

Polling B., Sroka W., Mergenthaler M., 2017, Success of urban farming’s city-adjustments and business models—findings from a survey among farmers 91. in Ruhr Metropolis. Germany. Land use policy 69, 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.09.034 Poore J., Nemecek T., 2018, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science, 01 Jun 2018: Vol. 360, Issue 6392, 98792.

992, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0216 93.

Popp J., Pető K. & Nagy, 2013, Pesticide productivity and food security. A review, J. Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2013) 33: 243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593012-0105-x Pradhan P., Costa L., Rybski D., Lucht W., Kropp J.P., 2017, A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5 (11), 94.

1169–1179.

95.

Prendeville S., Cherim E., Bocken N., 2018, Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 26 (2018) 171–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.03.002 Principato L., Ruini L., Guidi M., Secondi L., 2019, Adopting the circular economy approach on food loss and waste: The case of Italian pasta production, 96.

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 144 (2019) 82–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.025 Prosekova A. Y. , Ivanova S,A., 2018, Food security: The challenge of the present, Geoforum 91 (2018) 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

97. geoforum.2018.02.030 98.

Prosperi M., Sisto R., Lombardi M., Zhu X., 2018, Production of bioplastics for agricultural purposes: A supply chain study, Rivista di studi sulla sostenibilità, 1, 119-136, DOI: 10.3280/RISS2018-001010 Quintero-Angel M., Mendoza D.M., Quintero-Angel D., 2019, The cultural transmission of food habits, identity, and social cohesion: A case study in the 99. rural zone of Cali-Colombia, Appetite 139 (2019) 75–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.011 100.

Rahdriawan M., Wahyono H., Yuliastuti N., Ferniah R.S., 2019. Sustainable Urban Farming Through Aquaponics System Based on Community Development Case: Kandri Village, Semarang. In Achieving and Sustaining SDGs 2018 Conference: Harnessing the Power of Frontier Technology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (ASSDG 2018). Atlantis Press https://doi.org/10.2991/assdg-18.2019.10 Raimonds K., Ruskule A., Vinogradovs I., Villoslada Pecina M., 2018, LIFE Viva Grass project, The guidebook on “the introduction to the ecosystem service 101. framework and its application in integrated planning”, version on 28. sept. 2018, Riga: University of Latvia, Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences 2018, 1-63, ISBN 978-9934-556-39-5, Available at: https://vivagrass.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/guidebook_ecosystem_services_vivagrass-compressed.pdf (Accessed 9 January 2020) Reckien D., Salvia M.,Heidrich O., Church J.M., Pietrapertosa F., De Gregorio-Hurtado S., D’Alonzo V., Foley A., Simoes S. G., Lorencova E. K., Orru H., Orru 102.

K., Wejs A., Flacke J., Olazabal M., Geneletti D., Feliu E., Vasilie S., Nador C., Krook-Riekkola A., Matosovic M., Fokaides P. A., Ioannou B. I., Flamos A., Spyridaki N. A., Balzan M. V., Fülop O., Paspaldzhiev I., Grafakos S., Dawson R., 2018, How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28, Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 207-219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.220 Ritchie H., 2019, Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, November 06, 2019. Available at: https:// 103. ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions (Accessed 08 January 2020).

Ruckert A., Labonte R., Lencucha R., Runnels V., Gagnon M., 2016, Global health diplomacy: A critical review of the literature, Social Science & Medicine 104.

155 (2016) 61e72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.004 Salim S.A., Alaa M., Yusof Z.M., Ibharim L.F.M., Salim S.H., Hashim F., 2019. Urban farming activities in Southeast Asia: a review and future research 105. direction. MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 266, 02010. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201926602010 Salmoral G., Schaap N.C.E., Walschebauer J., Alhajaj A., 2019, Water diplomacy and nexus governance in a transboundary context: In the search for 106. complementarities, Science of the Total Environment 690 (2019) 85–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.513 Sanchez Levoso A., Gasol C. M., Martínez-Blanco J., Gabarell Durany X., Lehmann M., Farreny Gaya R., Methodological framework for the implementation 107. of circular economy in urban systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119227 Santagata R., Zucaro A., Viglia S., Ripa M., Tian X., Ulgiati S., 2020, Corrigendum to “Assessing the sustainability of urban eco-systems through Emergy108. based circular economy indicators”, Ecological Indicators 110 (2020) 105918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105918 Scarano F. R., 2017, Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: concept, scalability and a role for conservation science, Perspective in ecology and 109. conservation 15 (2017) 65- 73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon2017.05.003 Science for Environment Policy, 2015, Migration in response to environmental change Thematic Issue 51. Issue produced for the European Commission 110.

DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy (Accessed 6 January 2020) 111.

Sellberg M. M. , Norström A. V. , Peterson G. D., Gordon L. J., 2020, Using local initiatives to envision sustainable and resilient food systems in the Stockholm city-region, Global Food Security 24 (2020) 100334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100334 Shah S.M., Liu G., Yang Q., Wang X., Casazza M., Agostinho F., Lombardi G.V., Giannetti B.F. , 2019, Emergy-based valuation of agriculture ecosystem 112. services and dis-services, Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 118019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118019 113.

Shih W. Y., Mabon L., Jose A. Puppim de Oliveira, 2019, Assessing governance challenges of local biodiversity and ecosystem services: Barriers identified by the expert community, Land Use Policy, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104291 Simonelli A. C., 2019, Migration and climate change, Chapter 23, Managing global warming – An interface of Technology and Human Issues, Academics 114. press, Elsevier, Editors: Trevor Letcher, 695 - 710, ISBN: 9780128141045 115.

Sisto R., Sica E., Lombardi M., Prosperi M., 2017, Organic fraction of municipal solid waste valorisation in southern Italy: the stakeholders’ contribution to a long-term strategy definition, Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1 December 2017, 302-310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.186 Smith L. G., Lampkin N. H., 2019, Greener farming: managing carbon and nitrogen cycles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, Chapter 116.

19, Managing global warming – An interface of Technology and Human Issues, Academics press, Elsevier, Editors: Trevor Letcher, 553– 577, ISBN: 9780128141045 Sodiq A., Baloch A.B., Khan S. A., Sezer N., Mahmoud S., Jama M., Abdelaal A., Towards modern sustainable cities: Review of sustainability principles 117. and trends, Journal of Cleaner Production 227 (2019) 972-1001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.106

118.

Springmann M., Clark M., Mason-D’Croz D., Wiebe K., Leon Bodirsky B., Lassaletta L., de Vries W., Vermeulen S.J., Herrero M., Carlson K.M., Jonell M., Troell M., Declerck F., Gordon L.J., Zurayk R., Scarborough P., Rayner M., Loken B., Fanzo J., Godfray H.C.J., Tilman D., Rockström J., Willett W., 2018, Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0 119.

Taufani B., 2017. Urban farming construction model on the vertical building envelope to support the green buildings development in Sleman. Indonesia.

Procedia Eng. 171, 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.333.

120.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2019, The 2030 Agenda is indivisible, we cannot cherry pick the SDGs, Available at: http://www.teebweb. org/sdg-agrifood/annex-2/(Accessed 07 September 2019) 121.

Tomich T.P., Lidder P., Coley M., Gollin D., Meinzen-Dick R., Webb P., Carberry P., 2019, Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity, Agricultural Systems 172 (2019) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.002 122.

Tseng M.L., Chiu A.S.F., Chien C.F., Tan R.R., 2019, Pathways and barriers to circularity in food systems, Resources, Conservation & Recycling 143 (2019) 236–237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.015 123.

Underwood E. C., Hollander A. D., Safford H. D., Kim J. B., Srivastava L., Drapek R. J., 2019, The impacts of climate change on ecosystem services in southern California, Ecosystem Services 39 (2019) 101008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101008 124.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2018, Resource panel, Available: http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/redefining-valuemanufacturing-revolution (Accessed 06 January 2020) 125.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2015, Adoption of the Paris agreement. In: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), p. 31. United Nations, Paris, France.

126.

United Nations General Assembly, 2015, Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (Accessed 8 January 2020) 127. van Vuuren D.P., Kok M., Lucas P.L., Prins A.G., Alkemade R., van den Berg M., Bouwman L., van der Esch S., Jeuken M., Kram T., 2015, Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 98, 303–323.

128.

Wang N., Lee J.C.K., Zhang J., Chen H., Li H., 2018, Evaluation of Urban circular economy development: An empirical research of 40 cities in China, Journal of Cleaner Production 180 (2018) 876e887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.089 129.

Wantchekon L., Riaz Z., 2019, Mobile technology and food access. World Dev. 117, 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.01.006 130.

Wiedmann T. O., Schandl H., Lenzen M., Moran D., Suh S., West J., & Kanemoto K., 2015, The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(20), 6271–6276. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220362110 131.

Wong C., 2015, A framework for ‘City Prosperity Index’: Linking indicators, analysis and policy, Habitat International, Volume 45, Part 1, January 2015, 3-9.

132.

World Bank, 2017, Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2017: World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-46481080-0. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO, Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/2017-atlas-sustainable-development-goals-newvisual-guide-data-and-development (Accessed 11 January 2020) 133.

World Bank. 2018. Moving for Prosperity: Global Migration and Labor Markets. Policy Research Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/9781-4648-1281-1. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO 134.

Xiang S.J., Zheng R.K., 2013, Study on the green economy development index in China (in Chinese). Stat. Rep. Office Fed. Stat. Pol. Stand. 30, 72-77.

135.

Zasada I., Schmutz U., Wascher D., Kneafsey M., Corsi S., Mazzocchi C., Monaco F., Boyce P., Doernberg A., Sali G. , Piorr A., 2019, Food beyond the city – Analysing foodsheds and self-sufficiency for different food system scenarios in European metropolitan regions, City, Culture and Society 16 (2019) 25–35, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.002 136.

Zeller V., Towa E., Degrez M., Achten W. M.J., 2018, Urban waste flows and their potential for a circular economy model at city-region level, Waste Management 83 (2018) 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.034 137.

Zhang W., Zhao X.C., 2012. The measurement and analysis on index of low carbon oriented development for major cities of China (in Chinese). Urban Stud. 4,11-16.

For more information, permission to reprint or translate this work, and all other correspondence, please email: info@ futurefoodinstitute.org