Applying food system approaches in project design

This part explains how to apply food system approaches in existing or new projects. The following sections provide practical guidance on integrating food system approaches into each planning step. They include best practices, examples, key resources and tools. Generic aspects not specific to food systems (e.g. monitoring and evaluation, or risk management) are not covered. It should be noted that project design is a non-linear, iterative process that requires close collaboration with local stakeholders.

Context and problem analysis

The food system approach helps analysing complex problems within a changing context. Begin by populating a generic food systems map with specific actors, factors, activities and relationships (see example below). Identify possible salient feedback loops between food system components and reflect on what (wanted and unwanted) outcomes the food system currently generates. Add exogenous and endogenous drivers and key trends that influence the food system (e.g. climate change, or the rise of convenience food). Assess why the system functions (or malfunctions) – what motivates or demotivates actors to behave and interact in ways that produce desired food system outcomes? Which barriers exist?

After having gained a holistic view of the situation, you need to define system boundaries. Boundaries in systems thinking refer to the limits or scope set around a system or its components. They define what is included or excluded from the analysis or intervention. Boundaries can refer to physical locations or jurisdictions (e.g. specified landscapes or districts), sectors (e.g. health system or livestock sector), focus areas (e.g. employment or nutrition) or time-frames (short to long term). While it is acceptable to draw boundaries that prevent the project from becoming overly complex, carefully consider unwanted effects and address critical risks. For example, if promoting vegetables improves nutrition but increases the use of hazardous pesticides and depletes water resources, you cannot ignore these effects by defining narrow system boundaries.

• 👍 Good practices

  • Talk to key food system actors (e.g. through focus groups), including market actors, to understand how the system currently functions.
  • Use foresight and scenario analyses to extrapolate current trends and envision the long-term situation.
  • Avoid getting lost in complexity; apply a holistic view with a selective approach.
  • Link the discussion of systems boundaries to an analysis of critical risks.
  • Revisit the problem analysis from time to time and add new insights into your food system map.

• 💡 Example

  The Nurture project in Cambodia implemented by Caritas Switzerland and the Swiss Church Aid (HEKS/EPER) applies a systemic approach to enhance climate resilience by improving agricultural supporting systems and strengthening water governance for 15,000 households, focusing on women, youth, and marginalised groups.

  

• 👓 Further readings

  • Knowledge product chapters 2.1, TIB?
  • FAO’s report “Food systems at risk” provides a comprehensive introduction to food systems with a focus on low- and middle income countries.
  • The Food Systems Dashboard compiles and visualises global and national data from multiple sources.
  • The Food System Decision Support Toolbox and the FS-TIP Food Systems Analysis Toolkit offer guidance to conduct food system analyses.
  • Systems Mapper is an AI-powered tool for creating and understanding complex system diagrams using the Mermaid diagram syntax.
  • For guidance on how to integrate Climate, Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction in project design, see CEDRIG.
  • For guidance on drawing system boundaries, see Sustainability Methods

Setting goals and objectives

The food system approach helps maintain a holistic view without getting lost in complexity, providing a good starting point for defining the scope of a project. Start by analysing which food system outcomes need to change from a sub-optimal to a more optimal state. The three primary outcomes of food systems are:

• economic & social well-being, resilience,
• food & nutrition security, and
• environmental sustainability.

Ideally, the project should design interventions that generate positive results in all three dimensions (win-win solutions). Sustainable production and marketing of nutritious foods, for example, can at the same time increase incomes of farmers, reduce malnutrition among children and reduce environmental impacts while enhancing resilience to climate change. At a minimum, improving one outcome should not significantly disadvantage the other two. This may require specific measures to mitigate possible trade-offs and unwanted effects. Typical trade-offs in food systems include agricultural intensification versus environmental impact, the cultivation of cash crops versus improving nutrition, enhancing diversification versus increasing the workload for women, or enhancing market linkages versus power imbalances between market actors.

The next step is to define more specifically with whom and for whom food system outcomes need to change. Which stakeholders in the food system are expected to change their practices and behaviours? Examples include farmers adopting new techniques, SMEs offering new services and invest in scaling up, local authorities implementing food system strategies, and schools offering healthier meals. And who are the people who should ultimately experience improvements? Smallholder women farmers or youth entrepreneurs, malnourished rural or urban consumers?

Combining these reflections with the previous food system analysis will help develop an architecture of goals, outcomes and outputs that form the basis of the project’s results frame. Aligning goals and objectives with the SDGs and with national strategies and priorities will enhance buy-in from responsible authorities and donors. It is also advisable to reflect early on the risks of not achieving the expected outcomes, and integrate mitigation measures in the project design right from the beginning.

• 👍 Good practices

  • Defining the scope, goals and objectives of a food system project should be a co-creation process involving the concerned local stakeholders – and ideally is led by them.
  • Begin with the perspectives of legitimate local actors (authorities, CSOs) on what changes in food system outcomes they want to see and validate a draft food system map.
  • Facilitate the development of a joint vision, goals and objectives to ensure strategic alignment between project partners.
  • Ensure alignment with relevant local and national institutional priorities and strategies.
  • Pay particular attention to the situation and role of women, youth and disadvantaged groups (e.g. internally displaced people and refugees).

• 💡 Example

  The Nutrition in City Ecosystems Project (NICE) implemented by Swiss TPH, ETH Zurich, Sight and Life and Sustainable Agriculture Foundation facilitates locally-led action to improve nutrition and reduce poverty in low and middle income countries through agricultural, food and health sector collaborations, and public-private engagements, with strong emphasis on the role of women and youth entrepreneurs.

  

• 👓 Further readings / tools

  • Knowledge product chapters 2.3. and 2.4., TIB?
  • For alignment with official food system goals and objectives of partner countries, check national commitments and pathways to food system transformation compiled by the UN Food Systems Hub.
  • For a deep-dive on win-wins and trade-offs between food system outcomes, consult the report Identifying synergies and trade-offs with food system interventions (Wageningen University & Research, 2021).

Developing interventions

Based on the food system analysis and the defined outcomes, you can now identify key levers and interventions that can be used to catalyse the envisaged transformation. Choose levers that have a significant systemic effect, but that the project can also realistically influence (see below). Since you cannot simultaneously work on all possible levers and interventions, prioritise those most likely to have the biggest effect with available resources.

The next logical step is to formulate your theory of change by bringing the chosen interventions in relation with the desired outcomes. This can be formulated as a short narrative describing the underlying assumptions (“If…., then…”) or as a depiction of the logical framework (activities -> outputs -> outcomes -> impact). However, a graph showing the interrelations between interventions and outcomes is more suitable for a systems approach. Ideally, you can base such a graphical depiction on the food system map developed in the analysis step.

• 👍 Good practices

  • Consider the sustainability of interventions and scaling up from the outset.
  • Re-visit formulated objectives and adjust them, if necessary.
  • Also take into consideration non-linear causal relationships and feedback loops.
  • Develop a sufficiently flexible logframe to allow for adjustments during project implementation.

• 💡 Example

  The project CROPS4HD implemented by SWISSAID, FiBL, and AFSA works on demand (push), supply (pull) and policy aspects of neglected and underutilised crops. It implements interventions in the seed system as well as in the food system.

  

• 👓 Further readings / tools

  • Knowledge product chapters?, TIB?
  • The RANAS approach (Risks, Attitudes, Norms, Abilities, and Self-regulation) developed by EAWAG can be applied to understanding and influencing dietary behavior change.
  • The paper Influencing food environments in Low and Middle Income Countries sheds light on the state of knowledge and research needs in this topic.
  • The UN Food Systems Summit Policy Brief on Governance of Food System Transformation provides guidance on strengthening food system governance at global, national and sub-national levels.
  • The publication Rethinking Our Food Systems: A Guide for Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration jointly developed by UNEP, FAO and UNDP consolidates learnings and tools to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainable food systems transformation.
  • SDC’s Sharewebs on Private Sector Development (PSD) and Market System Development (MSD) provide practical guidance, tools and news on these approaches.
  • Participatory Guarantee Systems directly link producers and consumers.

Stakeholder engagement

Involving relevant local food system stakeholders is absolutely essential in every step of project development. It is therefore important to design appropriate participatory processes to engage them effectively. They obviously need to be consulted during the context and problem analysis phase in order to get a comprehensive and realistic picture. Consultation will lead to a better understanding on who provides, who pays, who uses and who regulates services? Who does, or does not have access to resources, markets, financial services? Who makes decisions? A stakeholder map is a useful tool to identify the relevant stakeholders, their relationships with each other and existing power dynamics.

Stakeholder involvement is even more crucial when setting goals and objectives and when developing interventions. Following a food systems approach means recognizing that interventions are only sustainable if they are carried by existing food system actors, particularly by those who are in the driving seat to transform food systems. These are usually local or national authorities such as ministries, district departments or municipal governments. In some cases, associations of stakeholder groups such as farmers, businesses or consumers can also be legitimate drivers of food system transformation. It will be of great value if the project has a formalised partnership with such actors that ensures alignment on goals, objectives, interventions and processes.

An approach that has been proven useful in food system projects is to establish a multi-stakeholder platform involving representatives of relevant stakeholders. Depending on the specific context, these can include local authorities, producers, businesses involved in the food system (e.g. input and technical service providers, aggregators and traders, processors, retailers, canteens), consumer associations, academia and civil society organisations.

Most likely your project is not the only initiative to transform food system outcomes in your focus country or region. In recent years, a multitude of food system related projects and initiatives have come up all over the globe. It is therefore advisable to check who else is working on similar goals, coordinate interventions for best use of synergies and exchange information and learnings.

• 👍 Good practices

  • Provide sufficient time and resources for a co-creation phase to design the project together with legitimate local stakeholders.
  • Analyse political economy and power relations and support alliances in favour of transformative change.
  • Build a shared vision and formalise relationships with local key stakeholders by setting up partnership agreements or memorandums of understanding.
  • Involve local key stakeholders in assessing progress and in project steering to ensure ownership and sustainability.
  • Help local authorities overcome siloed institutions, e.g. by supporting multisectoral platforms (agriculture – health – environment…).
  • Keep plans concise and open to ensure adaptability based on stakeholder guidance and lessons learned.

• 💡 Example

  The Inclusive Cities for Nutrition Project (IC4N) implemented by Helvetas in Tanzania and Bangladesh collaborates with municipalities of secondary cities in enhancing the production and consumption of healthy foods. Further stakeholders include farmer groups, food processors and vendors, universities and schools, as well as other INGOs active in this domain.

  

• 👓 Further readings / tools

  • Useful software tools for stakeholder mapping are provided for example by Mural, ClickUp or Project Manager, but require subscription.
  • The Who-Does-Who-Pays Matrix helps identify actors in the market system. It is a useful framework to help you decide whether your activities will lead to sustainable behaviour change.
  • The Political Economy and Power Analysis Manual helps understand the interconnectedness between social, economic, environmental, and political actors and systems, and the changes required to address the root causes of power imbalances.
  • OECD’s Shifting Power with Partners Toolkit provides practical insights and tools for implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance.
  • The discussion paper on Multi-Actor Partnerships (MAPs) by the German Development Institute provides guidance on how to form effective partnerships involving private sector actors.
  • The Global Food Systems Network Map developed by the Meridien Institute is an online tool designed to visually represent the relationships among stakeholders involved in food systems-related efforts worldwide.