Main areas of action (governance)

The following main action areas should be considered for strengthening food systems governance.

Power and authority

• Foster an in-depth understanding of power relations and the political economy. This involves recognizing that power is not evenly distributed across the food system and some actors are more marginalised than others. Engage with powerful champions if they are fundamental for achieving policy reform and be wary of actors that could potentially derail progress towards a common policy agenda which is needed for a successful food systems transformation.
• Establish robust anti-corruption measures alongside effective response mechanisms to address any instances of corruption within food systems. Enhancing transparency and reinforcing accountability can drive more equitable, efficient, and sustainable food production and distribution. Key solutions include implementing digital food ration cards to prevent resource misallocation and utilizing blockchain technology to improve food fraud traceability. Additionally, organisational strategies, such as strengthening community-based structures, can disrupt organised crime and reduce criminal influence. Initiatives like social farming and the development of social enterprises play a critical role in empowering local communities and dismantling criminal networks.
• Ensure that authority is sufficiently considered. Sectoral ministries for multi-sectoral issues can be impeded by both a lack of sufficient authority vis-à-vis single sector ministries and insufficient financing for their activities. Solutions include putting a thematically ‘neutral’ and more powerful ministry such as the finance or planning ministry in lead of multi-sectoral activities or to place multi-stakeholder platforms within the responsibility of high governmental offices such as the President or Prime Minister's office. In addition, vertically divided authority—whereby control of a subnational entity is by a different political party than that which governs at the centre—generates unique political economy dynamics whereby the central authority might try to block initiatives proposed by the subnational entity. In addition, well-organised and financed actors in the food system may have strong incentives to block reform.

Inclusive food systems (Gender + Social Equity)

• Food systems do not serve everyone’s needs. Access to products and markets are limited for some – not everyone can afford a healthy diet, and women are ten percent more likely to be food insecure than men.^[1] Participation in decision-making and policy design is typically low. Leaving no one behind and ensuring all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalised, are included in decision-making is paramount together with understanding the root causes of exclusion. In food systems this could refer to disadvantaged and marginalised groups not being able to access public and/or private services and to people with a low purchasing power not able to financially access markets. Furthermore, social stigmas and discrimination could exclude people from societal spaces as well as exclude their knowledge and value systems.
• Promote the recognition and institutionalisation of indigenous knowledges systems and value systems countering social stigmas and discrimination. Indigenous communities have tremendous knowledge on local ecosystems and traditional inputs, such as seeds, might be much more resilient than new varieties. For instance, the establishment of seed banks has proven to be a best practice to preserve the knowledge and traditional high-resilient seeds.
• Embrace the principle bridging the last mile to allow everyone access to services and information. It is particularly relevant in geographically isolated regions where extension workers and public institutions often struggle to reach those people due to a lack of resources such as time and fuel. This risk of an extension bias – serving only those living next to the extension worker - has been observed in various cases. E-extension services offer one solution to address the challenge. Through the combination of digital technologies, extension officers can reduce the cost and increase the frequency of interaction with farmers. For instance, in Bangladesh farmer-to-farmer videos on rice seed production produced for women were instrumental in lowering production costs from lower seeding rates, and a 15 percent increase in rice yields.^[2] Another promising solution is the Local Service Provider Model whereby lead farmers are trained by public extension staff in the provision of services such as vaccinations. It ensures that access to such a service is provided independently of the availability of the public extension staff. It also creates a direct link between the farming community and the extension officer allowing for direct share of information.
• Enhance the capacities of food systems actors to enable them to effectively fulfill their roles within the system and empower them to advocate for their needs and priorities. Capacity building should go beyond technical skills, addressing critical aspects of organisational development to strengthen their internal governance. This includes improving leadership capabilities, resource mobilisation strategies, financial management practices, and accountability structures. Strengthening these areas ensures that actors are not only able to contribute meaningfully to the food system but also advocate for systemic change, manage resources efficiently, and sustain long-term impact.

Participatory and transparent food systems

[1] World Economic Forum 2025 ‘Food systems: These innovations could help end world hunger’ | World Economic Forum
[2] World Bank, 2019. Harnessing Digital Technologies to Improve Food System Outcomes

• Facilitate the strengthening of multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) where food system actors can express their voice and be heard. MSPs allow for decision-making to be transparent and coordinate multiple food systems actors across levels of government, sectors and civil society, private sector and academia. If functioning well, MSPs provide an open public space which is accessible to everyone. Different terminologies for MSPs exist such as food councils, food labs and multi-sectoral or multi-actor platforms, yet they all aim for comprehensive membership covering all food system stakeholder groups, including different sectoral representation and inclusion of community groups. MSPs can be established at all vertical levels from national to local and have been viewed as a way of ensuring that policy actions are not limited to ministerial siloes, improving cost sharing, and enhancing policy coherence. For instance, Multisectoral Steering Committees exist in Tanzania at National (High-Level Steering Committee on Nutrition (HLSCN)), regional and local levels (Regional and Council Multisectoral Steering Committees on Nutrition (R&C-MSCN)). Terms of Reference for each multisectoral committee are available outlining the composition, roles and responsibilities both for the committee and for each member, operational mechanisms and performance indicators.
• The National Council on Food Security and Nutrition in Brazil (CONSEA) is an impressive example of civic engagement for ensuring the accountability of state institutions. CONSEA was officially established in 1993 after movement around ethics in politics and against hunger sparked a major national mobilisation. CONSEA is an advisory body to the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil and aims to propose and monitor public policies related to food and nutrition security and the Right to Food. One of the key strengths is its diverse membership including civil society, private sector and the government. Civil society plays a key role representing two thirds of the total membership. Other members include 24 government sectors that work in food and nutrition security and private sector entities such as food supply centre associations and organic producers' cooperatives.
• Strengthen transparency in processes affecting the functioning of food systems and the relationships between food system stakeholders. For instance, a key concern in food systems has been the presence of intermediaries in supply chains charging farmers high prices and thereby dramatically reducing their profit. Transparency in value chains would reveal the prices charged and profits taken and would allow for a fair price to be paid to the down-stream supply chain actors particularly farmers. In the last years various initiatives have tried to tackle this issue. For instance, ‘equal profit certification’ allows the tracing of all products, or component of products, along the supply chain and permits for all supply chain actors to receive an equitable share of the profit. (see Equal Profit)

Policy coordination and dialogue

• Strengthen of policy dialogues fostering an understanding of and increasing awareness between different actors on their motivation and interest in the food system. The action supports compromise and consensus-building, helps to create a common vision across a broad range of actors and contributes to making discussions on food systems more inclusive by allowing those not normally empowered to raise their voice. A successful food system policy dialogue requires the following actions:
  • Defining the key food system outcome to be addressed,
  • Understanding the relevant food system(s) including food system stakeholders, their interest and influence in the food system as well as their relation among each other;
  • Assessing key bottlenecks and malfunctioning in the food(s) systems;
  • Selecting the right participatory mechanisms;
  • Agreeing jointly on the objective concerning food systems change/transformation;
  • Agreeing on interventions and responsibilities;
  • Defining a monitoring mechanism for measuring food systems change.
• Support global policy dialogues on food systems transformation to share successes and learn about best practices to sensitise decision-makers and motivate them to apply such actions in their own food system(s). It is encouraging to see that various global policy dialogues have recognised the importance of food systems governance, including the UN Food Systems Summit and the follow-up process, which will end in 2030.
• Facilitate the establishment of jointly prepared multi-sectoral workplans including budgets and a robust and transparent monitoring system. Those workplans address vertical integration by involving multiple administrative levels and horizontal integration by integrating all relevant sectors needed for a successful food systems transformation. Such attempts are most clearly reflected in national action plans on nutrition/multi-sectoral action plans which have been promoted in the framework of the scaling up nutrition process. These plans clearly outline key interventions by sectors, responsibilities and reporting mechanisms. In the last decades various countries – mostly under the umbrella of the scaling up nutrition initiative - have established national plans of action on nutrition trying to ensure sufficient budgets for nutrition which comprises a large number of food-related interventions.
• Promote an integrated policy framework (financing/funding, planning, monitoring) recognizing that any policy intervention to address one part of the system will impact on other parts. For example, policies that regulate workers’ wages in the food system could impact food prices received by farmers, and those paid by consumers, with mixed implications for nutrition and health, leading to push-back against such policies. Therefore, any policy intervention to address one part of the system should be assessed for its impact elsewhere and decisions taken about what to prioritise and/or how best to manage the trade-offs. Policymaking should therefore aim for policy coherence so that efforts in one policy area do not undermine efforts in another area.
• Ensure fair taxation of food items incentivizing healthier food items and take account of hidden costs paid by the larger society such as public health costs linked to the treatment of overnutrition. In recent years, various countries have introduced taxes on high sugar-sweetened beverages and food items. It was observed that this led to a reformulation of those drinks and overall reduced the sugar intake therefore contributing to healthier food products and healthier living.

Decentralisation and territorial food systems governance (rural-urban linkages)

• Strengthening the territorial governance of food systems is crucial, as these systems are inherently spatial and deeply interconnected. Urbanisation, for example, has not only shifted consumer preferences but also restructured the spatial dynamics of food systems. While urban agriculture holds significant potential to contribute to resilient urban food systems, it cannot fully replace agricultural production in peri-urban and rural areas, which remain vital for ensuring the availability and accessibility of healthy food for urban populations. Unfortunately, spatial planning and land-use management across the rural-urban continuum are often fragmented, with responsibilities divided among multiple municipalities. To address this, mechanisms are needed to foster collaboration between municipalities, enabling the development of integrated and coherent approaches to spatial planning and land-use management. Consequently, effective territorial food systems governance must consider urban-rural linkages and regional development balances to ensure sustainable food access and resilience.
• Recognise the important role of decentralisation in strengthening food systems and identifying opportunities for transformation through locally-led initiatives. When implemented effectively, decentralisation can significantly empower local decision-making, enabling more tailored and context-specific approaches to food system challenges. Devolving authority to local governments fosters greater accountability in shaping food system changes and ensures that policies align more closely with local needs. For example, decentralisation can manifest in localised food system strategies that are designed to address the unique dynamics of each community, leading to more effective food system outcomes. When political responsibility is transferred to local governments, accompanied by adequate budget allocation, it facilitates the development of solutions that are not only locally relevant but also more effective. A case in point is Tanzania, where a dedicated budget for nutrition initiatives is allocated to local governments based on the number of children under five years old. Additionally, local governments in Tanzania have the authority to create and implement food strategies as part of their broader urban development plans, ensuring that food systems are integrated into overall community growth and sustainability.
• Promote local economic development for strengthening food systems, particularly by enhancing local infrastructure such as roads, storage facilities, and market access. Robust infrastructure is essential for ensuring the availability and accessibility of food, especially in rural or underserved areas. Investing in local development not only bolsters food system efficiency but also enhances resilience, enabling vulnerable households to maintain access to nutritious food during periods of economic shocks or environmental stresses. A prime example of this was during the Covid-19 pandemic, when many households faced challenges in accessing healthy food due to trade disruptions and rising prices. In Tunis, local food initiatives played a vital role in mitigating these challenges. Citizen organisations, such as the Association des Habitants de Mourouj, helped vulnerable communities by facilitating direct sales between producers and consumers through solidarity “souks,” ensuring fresh produce reached those in need. (FAO, 2024. Lessons learned from city region food systems under multiple shocks and stresses)