Reflecting on the progress on food systems transformation

Hello everyone and welcome!

I am Lucia Palmioli, your moderator for this discussion room focused on Reflecting on the Progress on Food Systems Transformation. I am looking forward to hearing your views, experiences, and insights on how far we have come and what key lessons we have learned in this journey so far.

You can respond to the questions in any order. Please, remember to indicate the organization you represent and the question number you are addressing in your comment.

You are also welcome to respond in any language of your choice by clicking the language button on the top right of the page; the platform will automatically translate it.

Thank you for being here, and let’s have a rich and constructive discussion!

The introduction of the digital technologies and the latest frontiers of technologies and the telecommunication 5G technologies standardization efforts and initiatives into the supply chains toolkit management processes and activities in the food systems and the food value chains is led to the achievement of the reduction in the costs and an easier manageable transparent systems.

This transformation initiatives includes the subject areas and the conceptual framework of the digital financial services and the financial inclusion strategies and roadmap.

Digital financial services.pdf293.02 KB

Kenya’s Experience in Bridging the Gap Between Stakeholder Participation and Policy Representation in Food Systems

Kenya has made notable strides in promoting inclusive participation in food systems policy development. However, the gap between stakeholder involvement and actual representation in official documents persists in many instances. Stakeholders—particularly smallholder farmers, youth, women, and pastoralist communities—often report that while they are invited to participate in consultations, their inputs are not meaningfully reflected in final policies. This leads to perceptions of symbolic engagement without real influence.

Successful Examples of Bridging the Gap:

1. Agri-Nutrition Policy Processes (e.g., Food and Nutrition Security Policy Implementation Framework)
   During the development of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP) Implementation Framework, Kenya adopted a multi-stakeholder approach that included CSOs, farmer organizations, academia, and development partners.

   • What worked:

     • Deliberate inclusion of stakeholders in both drafting and validation stages

     • Use of multi-sectoral working groups at national and county levels

     • Documentation of stakeholder contributions in final reports

     • Establishment of a technical working group that continued engagement beyond the consultation phase

2. National Dialogue Processes in Preparation for the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS, 2021)
   Kenya hosted several dialogues involving grassroots stakeholders, private sector actors, researchers, and marginalized groups.

   • What worked:

     • Hosting independent dialogues at community and county levels, with synthesis reports submitted to national platforms

     • Use of digital tools (like Zoom and WhatsApp) to gather views from remote areas

     • Publishing dialogue outcomes and explicitly noting which suggestions were taken forward to national policy positions

     • Creation of a follow-up task force to track post-dialogue policy progress

Mechanisms to Move Beyond Symbolic Participation:

To ensure that participation leads to meaningful policy influence, the following mechanisms are essential:

1. Structured Feedback Loops

   • Create formal channels to communicate how stakeholder input has been used—or why it wasn’t adopted.

   • Use summary reports, community meetings, or digital dashboards for transparency.

2. Institutionalized Multi-Stakeholder Platforms

   • Establish permanent, inclusive platforms (e.g., food systems councils) at both national and county levels.

   • These platforms should have mandates to co-develop policy, not just review drafts.

3. Participatory Policy Monitoring

   • Involve stakeholders in tracking implementation of food systems policies.

   • Use citizen-generated data and participatory M&E to keep policymakers accountable.

4. Legislative Anchoring of Participation

   • Anchor participatory processes in law or official guidelines (e.g., Public Participation Act at county level).

   • Define the minimum standards for engagement, timelines, and responsibilities.

5. Capacity Strengthening and Inclusion

   • Invest in the capacity of marginalized stakeholders to engage meaningfully (training, transport, translation, etc.).

   • Ensure that traditionally underrepresented groups (women, youth, indigenous communities) have seats at the table—not as tokens, but as decision-makers

From what I've seen, several common gaps often hinder the cohesion and effectiveness of national food systems strategies:

Fragmented Governance: Strategies are often developed within silos—agriculture, health, environment, and trade ministries may each have their own agendas and plans without strong coordination.

Limited Stakeholder Involvement: Farmers, consumers, indigenous groups, youth, private sector, and civil society are frequently consulted late in the process, if at all, resulting in strategies that don’t reflect lived realities.

Lack of Enforcement and Financing: Without binding commitments, timelines, or budgets, strategies remain aspirational rather than operational.

From a stakeholder perspective, a cohesive and relevant food systems strategy would:

Reflect Local Contexts and Priorities: It must be rooted in the realities of local producers, consumers, and ecosystems—avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches.

Foster Cross-Sectoral Integration: A truly food systems approach links agriculture, health, nutrition, trade, climate, and education policies coherently.

Be Developed Transparently and Inclusively: When stakeholders are part of the co-creation process, they are more likely to trust, support, and implement the strategy.

Include Clear Accountability Measures: With defined roles, targets, and consequences for inaction.

3. Strengthening Implementation, Monitoring, and Commitment

To make food systems strategies more than just plans on paper:

Institutionalise Inter-Ministerial Coordination Mechanisms: Create cross-sectoral task forces or steering committees with real decision-making power and shared accountability.

Use Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Involve communities, civil society, and researchers in tracking progress through localized indicators and feedback loops.

Ensure Political and Financial Commitment: Anchor food systems goals in national development plans and allocate adequate, ring-fenced budgets.

Leverage Data and Technology: Use digital tools for real-time data collection, transparency, and performance tracking.

Align with Global Frameworks While Remaining Locally Grounded: Integrate the UN Food Systems Summit outcomes or SDGs, but tailor strategies to national and subnational priorities.

In Türkiye, while awareness of national food systems discourse has grown, many stakeholders, particularly from civil society, youth, and regional organisations, feel their participation remains symbolic. Consultations are often short-term, with limited transparency on how inputs are used, and no structured feedback mechanism from policymakers. A meaningful shift would require institutionalized multi-stakeholder platforms with built-in feedback loops, such as follow-up reports, co-drafted sections in national strategies, and regular joint reviews that include civil society voices.

Existing documents and action plans often remain aspirational and siloed, lacking binding goals, inter-ministerial coordination, and long-term financing. For a strategy to feel relevant and effective, it must clearly define roles across ministries, allocate funding for implementation at local levels, and include formal mechanisms for civil society participation in decision-making and monitoring. Municipal-level initiatives, such as İzmir’s Food Policy Council, offer good models of inclusive governance that could be scaled nationally.

Strengthening national pathways will require moving beyond declarations toward operational frameworks with accountability. This means measurable targets, annual progress reviews involving stakeholders, and designated public bodies responsible for coordination. Without these components, strategies risk remaining aspirational rather than transformational.

This resonates deeply. As someone involved in [civil society/youth/regional work], we've often found that our input is invited, but not integrated meaningfully. For real progress, we need structural changes that move beyond symbolic involvement to genuine partnership and co-creation.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far. Here is a brief summary of the key themes and insights shared in the discussion:

• Symbolic participation: while stakeholders are often invited to participate in consultations, their inputs are not meaningfully reflected in policy documents.
• Examples of good practice: Examples from Kenya (including the Agri-Nutrition Policy Framework and national dialogues) and Türkiye (İzmir Food Policy Council) illustrate how more inclusive processes and structured feedback loops can help bridge the gap between participation and policy influence.
• Challenges and gaps: Participants also highlighted challenges such as fragmented governance, lack of binding measures, limited financing, and inadequate mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination.
• Concrete mechanisms: Suggestions included creating permanent multi-stakeholder platforms, incorporating participatory monitoring, and ensuring political and financial commitments.
• Digital tools: One comment mentioned the potential of digital and financial technologies to improve transparency and inclusivity, though further examples of their application would be helpful.

These contributions provide a good foundation for reflecting on the progress of food systems transformation and for identifying practical ways to strengthen stakeholder engagement and national strategies.

As we continue this discussion, I would welcome more concrete examples of how these recommendations or practices have been implemented in different contexts.

Also, I would appreciate:
- clarifications on which guiding question(s) your comments are responding to, as this will help us integrate them into the chapter more effectively.

- information on the organization or stakeholder group you represent, to ensure the report includes a broad range of perspectives.

Thank you again for your valuable contributions!

Transnational cooperation—such as the Norwegian government’s investment in the Amazon Fund—demonstrates how strategic partnerships can create pathways for broader inclusion of stakeholders. This fund, originally designed to support forest protection, could also serve as a model for financing sustainable circular bioeconomy value chains that link environmental conservation with inclusive economic development.

It has a promising model of governance, the Amazon Fund itself, which incorporates multistakeholder representation through its Steering Committee (COFA). This body includes representatives from federal and state governments, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples. It has contributed to the institutionalization of inclusive decision-making, aligning funding with on-the-ground needs.

Projects supported by the Amazon Fund have enabled local organizations, particularly Indigenous and traditional communities, to implement and monitor nature-based solutions (NbS), such as community forest management, sustainable harvesting of non-timber products, and agroforestry value chains.

These mechanisms are central to building viable food systems based on agroforestry, which require not only support for production but also infrastructure and finance for post-harvest distribution, storage, processing, and market access.

To move beyond symbolic participation, are essential:

1. Multilevel Governance Platforms with Decision-Making Power (not subject to governments): Mechanisms like the Amazon Fund’s COFA should be replicated or integrated into national food system strategies, ensuring that stakeholders can co-design, not just consult on, policies.

2. Open Data Dashboards: Public access to real-time data on implementation, funding flows, and impact is critical. MRV systems, as developed under the climate agenda, must be integrated with data on food security, desertification, and biodiversity to enable coherent monitoring and evidence-based decision-making across interconnected sustainability goals. Dashboards must adhere to open data principles—interoperable, disaggregated, and usable by diverse actors — with transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness.

3. Performance-Linked Financing and Feedback Loops: Public and private funders should condition disbursements on inclusive implementation processes. For example, monitoring systems could be co-managed by governments and local organizations, ensuring regular feedback cycles that link community input to measurable progress indicators.

4. Strengthening Transnational Financing Mechanisms: international partnerships play a critical role in enabling the scaling of circular bioeconomy and agroforestry-based food systems. These funds help fill critical gaps in financing for distribution, storage, certification, and commercialization—areas often overlooked in traditional rural development models.

5. Formalized Recognition of Private Sector Contributions to NbS: As companies increasingly invest in regenerative agriculture and climate-smart supply chains, their role should be institutionalized via public-private platforms. Corporate actors, through their ESG commitments, are key enablers of NbS and must be included in co-governance structures with public accountability. These corporate NbS should also promote food security, biodiversity protection and desertification combat.

6. Legal Integration: Policies should embed participatory mechanisms as legal requirements, including the publication of how stakeholder inputs were integrated or justified when not included—a practice already adopted in some international environmental negotiation processes (ILO169 for instance).

In order to successfully bridge the gap between stakeholder participation in national processes and their actual representation in food systems policy documents, HYBRID Survey method should be utilised in line with best practices. Qualitative and Quantitative methodologies should be synergized and applied to get the desired results and to achieve the desired goals. As an Expert in Food system policy formulation, facilitation and implementation, these viable methodologies has been tested and trusted.

STRATEGICALLY TAILORED PROPER IMPLEMENTATION is the concrete mechanism to be used so as to move beyond symbolic participation and ensure that engagement leads to meaningful influence, with clear feedback loops, follow-up actions, and commitment from policymakers. It is pertinent to note that Lack of Proper Implementation of policies simply means incompetence and failure, as well as a negative impression on the populace and masses.

Questions 1 and 2 answered above.

From : NEDUCHUKS MULTI CONCEPT 

This is a report of survey results, so it's hard to know how to meaningfully review it as there is no clear method for sampling and therefore no way of knowing how representative the findings are of anything in particular. Lots of unique and context-specific examples do not add up to a clear representation of action and change. However, from a rights and equity perspective, some issues noted in the report seem important to highlight:
- lack of accountability, unclear accountability processes or duty-bearers at global and often also national level, including unclear monitoring approaches (whether monitoring metrics, or civil society assessments). Does not consider aspects such as using Universal Periodic Review (human rights mechanism) or other existing approaches as part of accountability and monitoring.
- different levels of access to policy and decisionmaking spaces (including the UN), based in differing levels of resources, respect, and power; and unclear or inconsistent processes for hearing different voices, and meaningfully incorporating a diversity of views in policy (rather than projects)
- inclusion of for-profit business (multi-national and SME) views alongside (on the same platform as) non-profit groups, elides very different agendas and glosses over conflicts of interest
It is clear that expectations are high but very varied for UNFSS+4, and it is unclear how the planning group will be able to consider all of these - is equity embedded in the process of planning UNFSS+4?
It will be important to assess this stakeholder report alongside the official UN Sec Gen's official UNFSS+4 pre-Stocktake document; until we can see both side-by-side, it is hard to make a meaningful analysis.

Does the document overall mention human rights or equity?

rights 16 times + right (to) 14 times
equity 10 times + equality 4 times (gender equality)
inclusive 39 times + inclusion 25 times
marginalized 13 times + marginalization 5 times + marginalize 2 times
vulnerable 13 times +vulnerable 1 time
justice 2 times (climate justice, intergenerational justice)
empowerment 14 times
accountability 22 times

Sara Dastoum , Senior Scientific Researcher at Sciensano – Belgium
Response to Q1 & Q2

In Belgium, despite multiple high-level policy documents referencing food systems transformation — including the Federal Food Strategy and EU-aligned roadmaps — there is no truly cohesive national food systems strategy. Existing frameworks remain siloed, with limited cross-ministerial coordination and virtually no formal mechanisms for engaging independent researchers or civil society in the implementation process. Most participation has occurred through isolated consultation events or strategy launches, with little evidence of feedback loops, follow-up, or policy influence.

From the perspective of someone who led independent assessments of corporate nutrition and sustainability commitments (via the BIA-Obesity and BIA-Sustainability tools), the disconnect between stakeholder participation and representation is stark. Our findings—showing that most food companies in Belgium lack time-bound, measurable commitments—were never acknowledged in national policy dialogues, despite the clear relevance. This omission points to a systemic resistance to integrating critical or accountability-focused voices, especially when they challenge commercial interests or expose weak implementation.

Symbolic participation is perpetuated by three factors:

1. Lack of binding mechanisms: National strategies are often aspirational, with no enforcement provisions or institutional incentives for uptake by non-state actors.

2. Absence of structured feedback: Consultations do not provide clarity on how inputs are used, or if they influence final policies at all.

3. Dominance of privileged stakeholders: Corporate actors, large NGOs, and well-connected institutions dominate the space, while independent researchers or smaller civil society groups are excluded or treated as secondary.

To move beyond this, we need:

• Permanent, multi-actor food systems platforms with a mandate to co-develop, not just comment on, national strategies;

• Institutionalized mechanisms for integrating independent research into government decision-making processes, especially evaluations that track progress and expose gaps;

• Transparent reporting and response systems: All consultations should include a public summary showing which inputs were integrated, and why;

• Political commitment to accountability: Participation cannot be meaningful if the policy environment is not prepared to be challenged.

In the current Belgian context, transformation is not blocked by a lack of ideas or frameworks—it is blocked by the refusal to redistribute governance power. Until policy-making creates real space for evidence-based, independent, and sometimes uncomfortable contributions, transformation will remain performative.

Question 1: Gap between participation and representation in policies

Our experience: GFN has participated extensively in national dialogues, capacity building, public awareness raising, and communication efforts around national food systems transformation pathways across more than 50 countries. However, we've identified a significant disconnect between conceptual recognition of the importance of reducing food loss and waste and the practical inclusion of food banks in effective regulatory frameworks. While many national pathway documents acknowledge food waste reduction, there's insufficient support for civil society organizations such as food banks and other entities dedicated to food rescue and redistribution, which GFN knows are essential actors in transforming potential waste into food security while achieving methane reduction.

Successful examples bridging the gap:

• France: The explicit ban on destruction of surplus food and mandatory donation contracts transformed food recovery for food banks, demonstrating how GFN's advocacy for specific regulatory frameworks can translate into concrete policy action that enables food banks to reduce hunger and reduce food loss and waste
• Peru: Tripled food donations to food banks after implementing food donation requirements, showing how GFN's technical assistance and policy recommendations can achieve meaningful results in empowering food banks to reduce hunger while reducing food loss and waste
• South Korea: Managed to divert 96% of food waste from landfills through regulatory frameworks that GFN helped inform, creating opportunities for food banks to contribute to significant methane reduction

These successful models demonstrate the potential for scaling food recovery from current levels (<1% of global food waste) to meaningful impact. Despite evidence of effectiveness, many national pathway documents fail to adequately support the infrastructure and civil society organizations—such as food banks and recovery networks—that are essential for translating food loss and waste policies into practice.

Concrete mechanisms needed:

• Include food bank representatives in permanent advisory committees for food systems policy development, ensuring GFN's network has direct input
• Create formal channels for food bank participation in designing funding programs that recognize both climate and social objectives of food banks
• Establish specialized working groups on food recovery and redistribution with GFN and food banks as key stakeholders
• Implement GFN's FRAME methodology to measure methane reduction and nutritional impact of food banks, providing clear feedback loops on policy effectiveness
• Develop technical assistance programs where GFN can help countries implement regulatory frameworks that facilitate donation at scale for food banks

Question 2: Cohesive national food systems strategies

Our experience: Working across more than 50 countries, GFN has observed that while many national pathway documents conceptually recognize the importance of reducing food loss and waste, there's a critical gap in understanding how food banks contribute to the connection between food waste, methane emissions, and nutrition. Very few national pathways incorporate effective regulatory frameworks that GFN has seen demonstrate tangible results for food banks. Many plans present opportunities for improvement in specific regulatory elements such as liability protections, tax incentives, and date labeling reforms, which GFN knows are essential for facilitating food banks to operate at scale in food donation and recovery.

Similarly, The Global FoodBanking Network has been actively implementing food recovery programmes across more than 50 countries, focusing on scaling food waste reduction initiatives, advocating for stronger food donation policies, and engaging with governments to strengthen food security systems in alignment with the SDGs. The Global Foodbanking Network's standardized FRAME Methodology for measuring environmental and nutritional impacts provides a replicable model for other organizations seeking to quantify their contributions to food systems transformation. By quantifying avoided methane emissions through food recovery operations, GFN provides evidence-based data that demonstrates how redirecting food waste directly contributes to climate mitigation while addressing hunger, enabling governments to integrate food recovery into national climate and food security strategies.

What would make strategies cohesive and relevant:

• Recognize food banks as strategic partners: Integrate food banks into national food systems strategies as essential infrastructure for reducing hunger while achieving methane reduction, not just as charitable response
• Support food banks with proven regulatory frameworks: Include liability protections, tax incentives, and date labeling reforms that GFN has documented as essential for enabling food banks to scale their food recovery operations
• Provide specific financing for food banks: Allocate funding for agricultural recovery and integrate food banks' work into NDCs and social financing programs, recognizing their dual impact
• Enable food banks cross-sectoral coordination: Create mechanisms where GFN and food banks can facilitate collaborations between stakeholders in the food system to significantly increase reducing food loss and waste

Strengthening implementation mechanisms:

• Standardized measurement through FRAME methodology: Use GFN's FRAME methodology to measure environmental and nutritional impact of food banks, providing governments with hard data on benefits of food banks for both methane reduction and reducing hunger
• Policy replication for food banks: Expand GFN's Global Food Donation Policy Atlas with deeper analysis, helping governments translate successful models into concrete reforms that support food banks
• Capacity building for food banks: Share learnings from GFN's Accelerator Program, demonstrating how food banks can quickly scale impact in reducing food loss and waste
• Monitoring systems for food banks: Implement GFN's Annual Network Survey approach at national levels to track progress of food banks on both reducing hunger and methane reduction through food recovery
• Technical assistance for food banks: Provide ongoing support for countries to develop regulatory frameworks that enable food banks to operate effectively, with GFN offering expertise based on successful food bank models

The biggest challenge is ensuring the national processes around food systems are systemic. Often they focus on agriculture, with little mention of blue foods and how the land and blue foods are connected. The policies can be dominated by business and lobby groups with little room for small scale producers and civil society.  This is the case with the current English food strategy which is avoiding key issues such as over consumption of livestock products and is not taking account of the trade and changes in the international context. These will impact on the food system’s resilience and long term viability. As in other countries it is very nationalistic. The good food national act in Scotland is a far better examples of a more holistic process           

       To be systemic the strategy needs to take account of SMEs, human rights throughout the value chain, and look at all the areas between fishing and farming and retail and food service. It has to take account of processing and manufacturing and include the informal food economy.

       As well as looking at rural and urban contexts it has to look at the linkages and how they interact with each other.

       When developing the strategy and for implementing it, there needs to be a transparent process from the start. It should be government lead but it must contain a representative cross section of stakeholders, with a deliberate mechanism to recruit and recompense for their time, people from marginalised groups.

       As well as looking nationally it needs to reflecting changing global dynamics and how this will impact future food supply. This should include areas such as tariffs, trade, climate change and conflicts. It must also reflect local contexts and priorities, cultures and ecosystems.

       There have clear roles and accountability mechanisms.

       This will be underpinned by action, and clear political ownership, coupled with a financial commitment.

Regarding the cohesiveness of national food systems strategies, WFP can share its experience supporting Ethiopia’s national food systems pathway, which stands out for its inclusivity, institutional coordination, and alignment with national priorities. Developed through a broad, consultative stocktaking process involving over 100 stakeholders – including government institutions, donors, civil society, farmer groups, trade association, and the private sector – the pathway was co-created by multiple ministries under the leadership of a national food systems committee to ensure cross-sectoral coordination. It is fully aligned with Ethiopia’s Ten-Year Development Plan, the Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy, and the National Food and Nutrition Policy, enabling policy coherence and contributing to global goals, including the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. A validated implementation roadmap guides delivery through thematic cluster working groups, comprising government, academia, civil society, and private sector actors. A national monitoring and evaluation framework is also nearing finalization to support continued tracking and accountability.

At the same time, WFP recognizes that this process must be tailored to each context - what works in one country may not be directly replicable in another. We encourage an open exchange of perspectives, and welcome others to share their experiences, including the challenges they face in developing cohesive and operational national strategies.

Dear all,

I know the period of commentary is coming to an end. I would be grateful if it could be kept open for another 2 days. I am studying the draft and the commentary here.

Overview Position

As part of the HDP Nexus, we carried out a series of ministerial-level roundtable talks with 5 countries experiencing food crisis. The overarching issue was almost complete lack of implementation. If we are not implementing, the only thing that is changing is that things are getting worse. 

What was most encouraging, however, was that there was a strong sense of belief in the Food Systems Paths. There were strong correlations and synergies between the Sun Movement and the food systems approach.

There is also a strong sense of urgency, particularly in the least developed countries and a growing belief that they were being left on their own

This narrative must be seen as very worrisome when it is framed within the human rights framework. Specifically, extraterritorial obligation as exemplified in the Maastricht Treaty.

Kindest Regards,

Pat Mc Mahon

Mothers First 

The lack of implementation, despite high-level engagement and articulated food systems pathways, points to a deeper systemic disconnect—between commitments made and capacity or will to act. The fact that implementation is stagnant while crises worsen underscores the urgency to shift from discourse to delivery.The optimism surrounding the Food Systems Pathways and their synergy with the SUN Movement is encouraging. These shared frameworks provide a platform for collective progress. However, the perception—particularly among LDCs—that they are being left behind highlights an equity gap that must be urgently addressed.Framing this within the human rights context, and specifically referencing extraterritorial obligations as articulated in the Maastricht Principles, is particularly powerful. It reminds us that states have duties not only within their own borders but also beyond them—especially when their actions or inactions have cross-border impacts on the right to food, nutrition, and well-being.The HDP Nexus is well-positioned to drive this forward. A next step could be to concretely map where implementation is breaking down and align that with existing legal and policy obligations—creating a stronger accountability narrative.