To apply a food systems lens to their policies, governments must rethink food systems governance and institutional arrangements to promote inclusive collaboration, embracing a variety of voices  instead of individual and sectoral perspectives. In addition to bringing all relevant actors together, various levels of governance need to be involved (from national to sub-national, cutting across administrative borders).

In this context, multi-stakeholder mechanisms (MSMs) constitute an important element for embedding collaborative and coordinated food systems approaches in policies.

In this report, the term “sustainable food systems multi-stakeholder mechanism” (SFS MSM) refers to a formal or informal participatory governance mechanism or collaborative arrangement that brings together diverse food systems actors (e.g. government, private sector, NGOs, farmers) with different food-related agendas (e.g. environment, health, trade, agriculture), from all stages of the value chain (from production to consumption), in an inclusive way to collaborate in pursuit of sustainable food systems.

In practice, SFS MSMs vary in their forms (e.g. food policy councils, food security committees, sustainable food labs), their durability (permanent or ad hoc), legal status (whether or not they are created by a governmental decree) and representativeness (level of government and stakeholder participation). They can also operate at different scales (e.g. municipality/ county, department/province, multiple departments/provinces, national), and their roles and mandates remain diverse.

These groups usually convene stakeholders to share perspectives on food systems challenges, develop innovative solutions and influence food-related policy-making and planning. They are also increasingly involved in policy implementation. The emergence of SFS MSMs raises questions regarding the extent of their benefits, limitations and performance.

This study sought to identify, study and analyse national and sub-national SFS MSMs to understand and share their contribution to embedding a food systems approach in policy-making processes that support the transition toward sustainable food systems.

Ten outstanding cases were selected and studied, three at national level: France, Denmark and India; and seven at sub-national level: Ghent, London, Montreal, Los Angeles, Quito, La Paz and Antananarivo.

Main findings

1. Foundational and structural factors

In the majority of the cases studied, it was the convergence of several factors that led to the creation of the SFS MSM: political will; the passage of a policy, law or regulation stipulating the creation of a food multi-stakeholder platform; the presence of a perceived food insecurity problem in the country or city; and/or a strong social movement advocating for improvements in food-related issues.

Building successful collaboration takes time. It took from one to four years to establish the SFS MSM for the majority of the cases studied.

Funding is crucial.

Institutionalization is pivotal.

Connecting at different levels promotes a greater impact. The national-level cases studied also operate at regional and city level in collaboration with municipalities, additional stakeholders and networks. This seems to increase their outreach and impact.

2. SFS MSMs roles and thematic areas

The key roles played by the SFS MSMs studied for this report are networking, policy formulation, new collaborations and advocacy. Lobbying and advocacy, aimed at influencing decision-makers in relation to food-related policies, are at the heart of an SFS MSMs work.

Key food systems priorities that have been addressed so far by the SFS MSMs studied are mostly agriculture-related, with local production and peri-urban farming being the most frequent “hot topics”. These are followed by sustainable diets, food diversification, food environments, food security and poverty.

The food systems approach is the main conceptual framework used by the SFS MSMs studied.

3. The “rules of the game”: governance and dialogue

In general, all food systems actors (sectors, constituencies, activities) are represented, even though some stakeholders argue that it is still necessary to include the voices of more disadvantaged and informal actors at the grassroots level for increased representativeness and legitimacy.

In general, MSMs studied have clear vision, mission and goals, and have adopted multiple good governance principles. However, the inability to manage power imbalances is one of the main challenges and criticisms of multistakeholderism, questioning its legitimacy for good governance.

4. Stakeholder engagement

The stakeholders are highly engaged, and plenary meetings are the preferred way to participate in the SFS MSM. It would be beneficial however to put in place funding mechanisms to support the participation of disadvantaged groups.

5. Lessons learned from policy formulation and implementation

A twofold success in embedding the SFS approach in policy processes. All the SFS MSMs studied, with the exception of Eat Right India and the Antananarivo Food Policy Council, have led and/or informed the formulation of at least one key food policy, regulation, strategy, action plan or roadmap for sustainable food systems.

In addition to their contribution to food policy formulation, the SFS MSMs have also contributed to and/or included food topics in other related agendas and policy processes, in particular those related to climate change, environmental issues, and territorial and urban development. This is what “adopting a food systems approach” is about: not only formulating a sustainable food policy, but also having policies in different areas (e.g. agriculture, fisheries, environment, public health) that take a more holistic view and are better coordinated to avoid incoherent policies.

In the majority of the cases studied, a participatory assessment was conducted to understand the functioning of the food system in the given geographical context, in particular to inform food policy-making.

Policy priorities are usually based on the food systems diagnosis, but differences in stakeholders’ representation and power seem to affect the levels of influence when defining the policy focus areas.

When win-win decisions are not possible, economic interests seem to prevail over other aspects such as the environment and people’s health.

The private sector is usually blamed for this, and also perceived as the stakeholder group with the strongest agenda-setting influence and the highest resistance to transformative change.

The 10 cases participate to some extent in the implementation phase of food policies. The level of engagement varies greatly, from an active role in coordinating activities and managing the budget (as in the case of Ghent), to only implementing some communication activities and occasionally conducting monitoring and evaluation (as in the case of Quito).

6. Perceived achievements and challenges

Perceived achievements. Participants indicate that “networking of food stakeholders” is the key achievement of their SFS MSM. Networking increases connectivity among food systems actors and their capacity for action.

In recent assessments of the impacts of COVID-19 responses, this networking facilitated swift action and was important in achieving immediate food distribution, local marketing and other related measures.

“Policy formulation” follows as a key achievement, both in terms of “formulating an SFS policy” as well as in “providing input for the mainstreaming of food into other related policy processes”.

Not surprisingly, “addressing food systems trade-offs” is not recognized as a key achievement of the SFS MSMs.

Four key elements are perceived as key drivers of successful multi-stakeholder collaboration:

• the balanced representation of all food systems actors;

• the conducive leadership and governance;

• the trust built upon many years of networking and collaboration; and

• the perceived political support.

The main challenge reported by SFS MSMs is ensuring financial stability.