Business Strategist and Thought Leader

Why Iran’s participation in a global conversation about food, climate, and governance matters. By Reza Ghiabi | Community Host for Iran, 2026 Global Citizens’ Assembly The future of our planet cannot be decided by experts and governments alone. Climate change, food security, environmental degradation, and economic inequality are among the most interconnected challenges of our time. They transcend national borders, affect communities differently, and demand solutions that no single government or institution can deliver independently. Yet an important question is frequently overlooked: Who gets to participate in shaping these solutions? For decades, global decisions have largely emerged from negotiations among governments, international organizations, scientific institutions, and economic stakeholders. These actors remain essential. But the people who experience the consequences of these decisions rarely have a meaningful role in shaping them. The 2026 Global Assembly on Food and Climate offered a different approach. I had the opportunity to contribute to this initiative as a Community Host representing Iran, supporting a global effort to connect local communities with an international process of collective deliberation. The publication of the Assembly’s Methodology and Outputs Report in October 2026 provides an opportunity to reflect on what was achieved, what it means for global governance, and why participation from countries such as Iran matters. A global experiment in collective decision-making The Global Citizens’ Assembly brought together 105 citizens from 60 countries and territories to examine one of the most fundamental questions facing humanity: How can we change the ways we produce, distribute, consume, and use food so that everyone can be nourished while addressing climate change? Participants were selected through a two-stage civic lottery designed to create a small group reflecting important dimensions of the world’s population, including geography, age, gender, education, and other characteristics. Rather than simply collecting opinions through a survey, the initiative created the conditions for informed deliberation. Over seven weeks, participants engaged in 42 hours of structured discussions, examined scientific evidence, explored competing priorities, and worked toward collective recommendations. Making this possible required approximately 350 people working across more than 80 countries, 22 time zones, and over 50 languages. This organizational achievement deserves attention in its own right. The Assembly demonstrated that meaningful participation across geographic, cultural, and linguistic boundaries is not merely an aspiration. With sufficient coordination, resources, and institutional design, it can become an operational reality. Why this work matters beyond food and climate I believe the greatest significance of this initiative lies not only in its recommendations but also in its methodology. We often assume that complex global challenges require increasingly centralized decision-making or highly specialized expertise. However, expertise and public participation do not need to compete. Scientists can help us understand what is happening. Economists can assess trade-offs and incentives. Policymakers can evaluate institutional options. Citizens contribute something equally important: lived experience, local knowledge, values, and perspectives on what constitutes an acceptable future. The challenge is to bring these forms of knowledge together. The Global Citizens’ Assembly represents an attempt to do precisely that. It offers a model of participatory governance in which people are not merely consulted after decisions have been formulated, but are given the information, time, and institutional support necessary to engage with difficult choices themselves. Importantly, the process did not require participants to agree on everything. It sought to develop shared priorities while preserving meaningful differences. That distinction matters. Genuine collective intelligence does not emerge from eliminating disagreement. It emerges from creating conditions in which disagreement can lead to better judgment. What did the Assembly conclude? The most substantial outcome was a set of 22 Calls to Action, organized around four interconnected areas: food systems and agriculture; environment, climate, and nature; urban life and the built environment; and society, culture, and well-being. Several findings deserve particular attention. 1. A more sustainable balance in agriculture Assembly members expressed a preference for a future in which approximately 60% of the global food system is supported by agroecological farming practices, complemented by sustainable industrial agriculture. This was not a call to eliminate industrial farming. It acknowledged that modern food systems require scale, reliability, and affordability, while recognizing the environmental benefits of more ecologically balanced practices. 2. Rethinking agricultural incentives Participants favored directing approximately 60% of agricultural funding toward smaller, environmentally responsible farmers serving local markets. They also recommended that around 75% of financial support for farmers should be conditional on compliance with environmental requirements. These proposals raise important economic questions about how public policy can reward sustainability without undermining productivity, competition, or access to affordable food. 3. Connecting food security with environmental protection The Assembly supported stronger forest protection, restoration of natural ecosystems, and changes to agricultural practices that contribute to deforestation. Its preferred long-term scenario included restoring at least 5% of global forest cover by the end of the century, while acknowledging difficult trade-offs involving land use and high-consumption diets. 4. Treating food access as a matter of human well-being The recommendations emphasized access to adequate and nutritious food, targeted support for vulnerable populations, more resilient food distribution systems, and stronger recognition of food as a fundamental human right. They also connected food systems to cultural identity, community relationships, and public health. 5. Recognizing both the promise and limitations of technology One especially interesting aspect of the Assembly was the diversity of perspectives on technology. Some participants envisioned a future in which artificial intelligence, automation, and advanced agricultural technologies would play major roles. Others emphasized simpler, locally grounded approaches. Rather than forcing an artificial consensus, the final vision preserved these differences. This is a valuable reminder that technological progress should be evaluated not only by what it makes possible, but also by the value it creates and how equitably its benefits are distributed. According to the report, all 22 Calls to Action received more than 80% active support and at least 95% acceptance among Assembly members. These figures reflect the judgments of the participants in this deliberative process, not the results of a worldwide public referendum. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that people from substantially different backgrounds