Food Systems Governance in practice

Benefits of integrating a governance perspective in food systems

Applying a governance perspective in food systems analysis, planning and transformation has multiple benefits:

• A governance perspective ensures the recognition of and the adherence to international frameworks and agreements such as the human right to food. The right enshrines regular, permanent and unrestricted access to “quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear.”^[1] It obliges governments to avoid any measures that result in preventing such access. Lastly, it demands that all stakeholders pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilisation of resources.
• A governance perspective highlights the multiplicity of stakeholders and their different interests and motivations. By applying relevant comprehensive tools such as Political Economy Analysis (PEA) the different interests and motivations that inform decision-making concerning food systems stakeholders and their relations are well understood. Furthermore, through such a process, the motivations and interests to determine who can influence and drive change for food system transformation and who can block change are analysed. It informs consensus-building among multiple food system stakeholders and encourages cross-sectoral working.
• A governance perspective recognises the importance of political incentives for positive food systems change. Such incentives include fiscal policies and taxes affecting consumers choice and steering them towards more sustainable and healthier food options.
• A governance perspective in food systems ensures effective and efficient service provision along the whole supply chain and towards consumers is maintained. While public institutions such as the public extension system still play an important role, private service provision has been on the rise particularly in rural areas. A major cause of this rise has been the chronic underfunding of public institutions affecting their reach and effectiveness. Digital services are a promising solution for reducing inequality of access and improving distribution efficiency and transparency. In Nigeria, for example, the successful introduction of an e-wallet programme for subsidised fertilisers resulted in a higher number of recipients at lower costs and lower leakage. In 2011, the government spent approximately US$180 million for 600,000–800,000 smallholders, most of which did not reach the intended beneficiaries. However, with the e-wallet digital payment system, the government reached 4.3 million smallholders at a cost of approximately US$96 million.^[2]
• A governance perspective is important for developing inclusive food system interventions and ensuring all population groups, including vulnerable and marginalised ones, are considered in the decision-making processes. By considering their position in the current food systems status quo and understanding their degree of inclusion, local-tailored actions can be designed to increase their participation and strengthen their voice.
• Ensure accountability within food systems by establishing robust mechanisms that hold decision-makers and powerholders responsible for their actions. These mechanisms should include transparent reporting obligations, opportunities for meaningful public participation, and accessible channels of communication between citisens and those in power. Key components of accountability also involve ensuring that information is readily available, accurate, and open to public scrutiny. This transparency fosters trust, empowers communities, and enables informed decision-making, ultimately driving more equitable and sustainable food systems.
• A governance perspective strengthens coordination across different sectors, levels of government (local, national and global) and communities. By bringing together these different stakeholders a coordinated and systemic approach is adopted that ensures a diverse range of voices are heard, sectoral silos are avoided, accountability mechanisms are strengthened, and policy formation works across all levels of government.
• Lastly a governance perspective recognises the contribution of civic activism and civic engagement for positive food systems change. In the last decades, various international political movements have emerged often rallying under the concept of food sovereignty, such as La Via Campensina and Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. Such movements allow food systems actors, especially marginalised ones such as small-holders peasants to raise their voice and thereby challenge the status quo and push for change. The role of the civil society was also particularly instrumental in preparing UN Voluntary Guidelines such as the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition or on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the context of national food security.

[1] About the right to food and human rights | OHCHR
[2] World Bank, 2019. Harnessing Digital Technologies to Improve Food System Outcomes.

Challenges of integrating a governance approach in food Systems

There are also multiple challenges to working on strengthening good governance in food systems:

• Working in authoritarian contexts: We are currently witnessing democratic backslides or recessions of democracy in many countries as they move further towards authoritarianism. There are also other countries that have never experienced a robust democracy to begin with. In authoritarian contexts, there is little possibility for citisens to take part in public decision making, political processes are opaque, and information is often intentionally distorted, while political authority is often concentrated in the hands of small elite and decentralisation processes are not respected. This means, for example, that working on participative and inclusive decision-making concerning food systems can be challenging when decisions are made by a small group of elites, with limited input from civil society or other stakeholders. In some contexts, food may be used for political instrumentalisation; governments might control food access to reward political loyalty, for example.
• Working in war-prone contexts: war prone contexts can also have a profound impact on food systems, disrupting access to essential resources and destabilizing production. Conflicts often sever supply chains, isolate communities from food sources, and destroy agricultural infrastructure. Additionally, border closures and trade restrictions, such as heavy tariffs or embargoes, can further limit the availability of nutritious food, exacerbating food insecurity and hindering local economies
• Corruption: Corruption can become a significant issue where food-related resources (land, subsidies, access to markets) are diverted for personal gain and political patronage. Negative impacts include weakening of food system governance and regulatory structures, threatening health, safety, and food security, and leading or contributing to environmental degradation, economic loss, erosion of trust, social inequities, and decreased agricultural productivity.^[1]
• Limited Opportunities for Public Participation: Food systems are inherently fragmented, with decisions often made within isolated sectors, creating barriers for holistic approaches. As a result, public involvement is restricted, and various dominant interests—ranging from political and economic to ecological and agricultural—compete for influence. This fragmentation makes it difficult to address food system challenges in a unified way, leaving little space for broad public participation in shaping policies or practices.
• Exclusion and marginalisation: vulnerable and marginalised actors are typically left outside of food systems discussions at all levels, e.g. informal street sellers (which are often women) or small-scale farmers. Policies that formalise markets or are preferential towards supermarkets or large-scale global farming practices are a direct threat to these groups as they potentially lead to eviction/dispossession. Often such policies do not allow them to raise their voice or ensure their voices heard. Furthermore, resource and power concentrations by food system stakeholders and interest groups can further contribute to exclusion i.e. corporate entities capturing the agenda of food systems and dominating policy processes.
• Inequitable budget allocation for food products/systems in a country: A potential challenge for the transformation of food systems includes insufficient and inequitable budget allocation for food systems actions. In general, food systems transformation requires time and therefore investments in strengthening food systems will only show results after a certain time – this length of time is often not attractive at the political level. Furthermore, investments in agriculture as a key sector of food systems might not be perceived as investments in a ‘modern’ and profitable sector and therefore not supported as a much as investments in other sectors – all of it resulting in low budgets for food products and food systems.

[1] Demeshko et al 2024 Role of corruption in global food systems