Opinion: Progress on national food systems transformation is too slow

National food systems transformation pathways, submitted by 117 countries, were perhaps the most tangible outcomes from last year’s United Nations Food Systems Summit, or UNFSS. They set out each country’s objectives and actions for transforming its food system. Why are they so incredibly important? Because those pathways will be used to reshape the food systems that determine what foods we eat; how we produce, process, and distribute them; how this affects the lives of those who work throughout the food sector; and what effects food systems have on the climate, the environment, and global security.

The hitch is that these blueprints are not being implemented at a pace that can avert food security breakdowns like the ones we are seeing during the current food crisis, nor the longer-term structural changes that will be needed to deliver better nutrition, environment, and livelihood outcomes for all.

Yes, developing these pathways is complex. They are the culmination of agreements reached through the extensive set of food systems dialogues during 2020-2021. And they are a commitment by countries to take the actions and make the investments needed to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

But what really matters is whether the pathways are being developed and used effectively to deliver the intended results. Just over one year on from UNFSS, I canvassed views from our policy advisers in several African and Asian countries on the status of the pathways and the challenges faced in moving forward to implementation.

Here are some reflections.

Weak coordination is stalling progress

Progress has been slower than anticipated. The underlying causes of the current food crisis, particularly the economic difficulties following the pandemic, have been compounded by the significant effects of climate change in 2022 and further exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — a challenge for all governments.

But this crisis itself has not been cited as a barrier to the pathways’ implementation. In fact, it has sharpened the focus on the need to speed up this food systems transformation process. Most governments still have a keen interest in using the pathways as a mechanism for doing so.

Instead, there are some more fundamental issues slowing progress.

In many countries, there is still a lack of clarity on who in government is responsible for taking the pathways forward. In some cases, this is because of a change in the national convenor, the official tasked by each government to guide the process of national dialogues that informed the pathways. In others, the emergence of new institutional structures has left the distribution of responsibilities unclear. And in yet other cases, there has been a certain disquiet among departments that have been allocated a less prominent role than they might like.

The single common limiting factor has been a lack of coordination and cooperation within governments — a great shame, as it’s clear that more unified thinking and action is the only way to unlock the constraints to transformation.

National elections also slow progress: There is typically a lull in policymaking and policy delivery during the transition from one administration to the next, and specifically the need to identify new food systems champions. 

Elections also remind us of the difficulties of working across levels of government. In many countries, decisions impacting food systems are increasingly devolved to subnational levels — provinces, counties, and so on. At these levels, there is less awareness of the global initiatives advocating for food systems transformation and there is generally more limited capacity to reflect these initiatives in planning and policy processes.

But progress must continue

One view that came through strongly is the importance of maintaining what momentum remains.

Development partners have a vital role in making this happen. But they also need to ensure they do not throw further grit in the cogs with their good intentions by continuing to propose, fund, or implement misaligned interventions.

As a result of UNFSS, many coalitions and multi-organisation initiatives emerged to help countries implement their pathways. That’s both good and bad. What really matters is that all these initiatives are aligned in both their objectives and strategies, and so are complementary, not duplicating. Or as we’ve seen in some instances, actively conflicting.

The more experienced organizations have a particular responsibility to ensure the smooth running of these initiatives — and Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, or GAIN, is one of them. United Nations agencies, working with and through the U.N. Food Systems Coordination Hub, also need to play a role in helping manage this ecosystem to make sure the appropriate connections are made with and across governments.

How will we measure up?

As we move to 2023, and closer to the first biennial UNFSS stocktaking, we have to ensure that we have the minimum conditions in place to push forward with food systems transformation.

There is a lot we need to do to support countries in establishing or strengthening multistakeholder processes that give voice to marginalized constituencies. Concretely, this means:

• We need to help build awareness and capacity at subnational levels of government.

• We have to initiate dialogue between ministries to drive the required improvements in policy alignment.

• We need to build evidence and capacity to prioritize and sequence food systems interventions. • We must identify financing needs and take action to mobilize finance domestically, from the private sector and from donors.

GAIN will be supporting governments in 10 African and Asian countries to establish these minimum conditions and to continue to develop and implement national pathways to achieve the urgent improvements needed in food production and consumption delivered through more sustainable food systems.

Similar actions are needed in all countries that have national food systems pathways and, as importantly, in those that don’t, if we are to see meaningful transformation at the scale and speed required to realize sustainable food systems capable of delivering safe and nutritious food to all.