Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-12 (section)

=== 12.4.5 Food Systems Governance ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

To support the policies outlined in [[#12.4.4|Section 12.4.4]] , food system governance depends on the cooperation of actors across traditional sectors in several policy areas, in particular agriculture, nutrition, health, trade, climate, and environment ( [[#Termeer--2018|Termeer et al. 2018]] ; [[#Bhunnoo--2019|Bhunnoo 2019]] ; [[#Diercks--2019|Diercks et al. 2019]] ; [[#iPES%20Food--2019|iPES Food 2019]] ; [[#Rosenzweig--2020b|Rosenzweig et al. 2020b]] ). Top-down integration, mandatory mainstreaming, or boundary-spanning structures like public-private partnerships may be introduced to promote coordination ( [[#Termeer--2018|Termeer et al. 2018]] ). ‘Flow-centric’ rather than territory-centric governance combined with private governance mechanisms has enabled codes of conduct and certification schemes ( [[#Eakin--2017|Eakin et al. 2017]] ), for example the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), as well as commodity chain transparency initiatives and platforms like Trase ( [[#Meijaard--2020|Meijaard et al. 2020]] ; [[#Pirard--2020|Pirard et al. 2020]] ). Trade agreements are an emerging arena of governance in which improving GHG performance may be an objective, and trade agreements can involve sustainability assessments.

Research on food system governance is mostly non-empirical or case study based, which means that there is limited understanding of which governance arrangements work in specific social and ecological contexts to produce particular food system outcomes ( [[#Delaney--2018|Delaney et al. 2018]] ). Research has identified a number of desirable attributes in food systems governance, including adaptive governance ( [[#Termeer--2018|Termeer et al. 2018]] ), a systems perspective ( [[#Whitfield--2018|Whitfield et al. 2018]] ), governance that considers food system resilience ( [[#Ericksen--2008|Ericksen 2008]] ; [[#Moragues-Faus--2017|Moragues-Faus et al. 2017]] ; [[#Meyer--2020|Meyer 2020]] ), transparency, participation of civil society ( [[#Candel--2014|Candel 2014]] ; [[#Duncan--2015|Duncan 2015]] ;), and cross-scale governance ( [[#Moragues-Faus--2017|Moragues-Faus et al. 2017]] ).

Food systems governance has multiple targets and objectives, not least contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. GHG emissions from food systems can be impacted by both interventions targeted at different parts of the food system and interventions in other systems, such as reducing deforestation or promoting reforestation ( [[#Lee--2019|Lee et al. 2019]] ). For example, policies targeting health can contribute to diet shifts away from red meat, while also influencing GHG emissions ( [[#Springmann--2018b|Springmann et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Semba--2020|Semba et al. 2020]] ); national and local food self-sufficiency policies may also have GHG impacts ( [[#Kriewald--2019|Kriewald et al. 2019]] ; [[#Loon--2019|Loon et al. 2019]] ). Cross-sectoral governance could enhance synergies between reduced GHG emissions from food systems and other goals; however, integrative paradigms for cross-sectoral governance between food and other sectors have faced implementation challenges ( [[#Delaney--2018|Delaney et al. 2018]] ). For example, in the late 2000s, the water-energy-food nexus emerged as a framework for cross-sectoral governance, but has not been well integrated into policy ( [[#Urbinatti--2020|Urbinatti et al. 2020]] ), perhaps because of perceptions that it is an academic concept, or that it takes a technical-administrative view of governance; simply adopting the paradigm is not sufficient to develop effective nexus governance ( [[#Cairns--2016|Cairns and Krzywoszynska 2016]] ; [[#Weitz--2017|Weitz et al. 2017]] ; [[#Pahl-Wostl--2018|Pahl-Wostl et al. 2018]] ). Other policy paradigms and theoretical frameworks that aim to integrate food systems governance include system transition, agroecology, multifunctionality in agriculture ( [[#Andrée--2018|Andrée et al. 2018]] ), climate-smart agriculture ( [[#Taylor--2018|Taylor 2018]] ) and the circular economy ( ). Cross-sectoral coordination on food systems and climate governance could be aided by internal recognition and ownership by agencies, dedicated budgets for cross-sectoral projects, and consistency in budgets ( [[#Pardoe--2018|Pardoe et al. 2018]] ) (Boxes 12.1 and 12.2).

Food systems governance is still fragmented at national levels, which means that there may be a proliferation of efforts that cannot be scaled and are ineffective ( [[#Candel--2014|Candel 2014]] ). National policies can be complemented or possibly pioneered by initiatives at the local level ( [[#de%20Boer--2018|de Boer et al. 2018]] ; [[#Rose--2018|Rose 2018]] ). The city-region has been proposed as a useful focus for food system governance ( [[#Vermeulen--2020|Vermeulen et al. 2020]] ); for example, the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact involves 180 global cities committed to integrative food system strategies ( [[#Candel--2019|Candel 2019]] ; [[#Moragues-Faus--2021|Moragues-Faus 2021]] ). Local food policy groups and councils that assemble stakeholders from government, civil society, and the private sector have formed trans-local networks of place-based local food policy groups, with over two hundred food policy councils worldwide ( [[#Andrée--2018|Andrée et al. 2018]] ). However, the fluidity and lack of clear agendas and membership structures may hinder their ability to confront fundamental structural issues like unsustainable diets or inequities in food access ( [[#Santo--2019|Santo and Moragues-Faus 2019]] ).

Early characterisations of food systems governance featured a binary distinction between global and local scales, but this has been replaced by a relational approach where the local governance is seen as a process that relies on the interconnections between scales ( [[#Lever--2019|Lever et al. 2019]] ). Cross-scalar governance is not simply an aggregation of local groups, but involves the telecoupling of distant systems; for example, transnational NGO networks have been able to link coffee retailers in the global North with producers in the global South via international NGOs concerned about deforestation and social justice ( [[#Eakin--2017|Eakin et al. 2017]] ). Global governance institutions like the Committee on World Food Security can promote policy coherence globally and reinforce accountability at all levels ( [[#McKeon--2015|McKeon 2015]] ), as can norm-setting efforts like the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests ( [[#FAO--2012|FAO 2012]] ). Global multi-stakeholder processes like the UN Food Systems Summit can foster the development of principles for guiding further actions based on sound scientific evidence. The European Commission’s Farm to Fork strategy aims to promote policy coherence in food policy at EU and national levels, and could be the exemplar of a genuinely integrated food policy ( [[#Schebesta--2020|Schebesta and Candel 2020]] ).

<div id="Box 12" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="box-12-.2-case-study-the-finnish-fo-od2030-strategy"></span>