IIED ISSUE PAPER
BOX 1. DEFINITIONS
Food systems have been defined by the High-
Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and
Nutrition as ‘all the elements (environment, people,
inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions,
etc.) and activities that relate to the production,
processing, distribution, preparation and consumption
of food, and the outputs of these activities, including
socio-economic and environmental outcomes’
(HLPE, 2020).
Governance refers to the informal and formal rules,
customs, processes and practices whereby power is
exercised, decisions are made, and societal problems
are managed and solved (Andrée et al., 2019; Vignola,
Oosterveer and Béné, 2021). Governance is about
more than just ‘government’ and encapsulates the
many non-governmental actors who shape decision-
making at different territorial or jurisdictional levels,
including civil society and corporations, markets and
networks (Donkers, 2013; Andrée et al., 2019; van
Bers et al., 2019).
Food systems governance has been defined as the
“processes and actor constellations and institutions
that shape decision-making and activities related
to the production, distribution and consumption of
food” (van Bers et al., 2019). Other definitions have
included the environmental dimension more explicitly,
for example: “Governance of food systems refers
to the ability of actors to steer the food systems to
In Section 3, the report focuses on a specific form
of food systems governance: multi-stakeholder
mechanisms. This part of the paper builds on the
findings of a previous research which aimed to
understand how multi-stakeholder mechanisms are
advancing policymaking on sustainable food systems,
drawing on case studies from around the world,
commissioned by the Community of Practice on Food
Systems Approach on the Ground (CoP-FSAG) of
the One Planet Network Sustainable Food Systems
Programme (OPN SFSP) (Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT,
UNEP and WWF, 2021).
Finally, Section 4 concludes with some reflections and
key messages on tackling environmental challenges
through food systems governance to inform policy
and practice.
achieve food security, enhance resilience, facilitate
adaptation, or to instigate transformation and involves
not only the actors and activities of the food system
itself but also the actors and activities of related
domains such as land use, conservation, energy and
water resource management, poverty, and human
development” (Delaney et al., 2018). A food systems
approach to policymaking and implementation is one
aspect of food systems governance, which refers to
integrated and holistic food systems interventions
based on cooperation among different actors in the
system (Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT, UNEP and
WWF, 2021).
Environmental governance is the set of formal
and informal rules, processes, mechanisms and
institutions that shape how human-environment
interactions influence environmental outcomes (Lemos
and Agrawal, 2006).
Transformative governance refers to ways of
governing social-ecological systems, such as
food systems, in ways that enable them to change
in desirable ways, e.g. to be more resilient and
sustainable. It implies that governance itself will need
to change, in addition to supporting actual change to
systems (Chaffin et al., 2016). The concept is rooted
in environmental governance but is gaining traction in
wider debates about the environment, sustainability
and systems change.
BOX 2. METHODOLOGY
This discussion paper is based on a literature review,
an online survey and video interviews. A conceptual
review of the literature from the past ten years
sought to understand current debates linking food
systems governance and the environment, with a
particular focus on the governance of food systems,
and environmental governance. The survey and
interviews aimed to gather further information about
how the SFS MSM case studies in the 2021 OPN
SFSP study include environmental agendas in their
work, and as a result, help to address environmental
challenges. A survey was sent to the main contact
persons (focal points) for each of the 10 SFS MSMs,
as well as to their members and stakeholders.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with five
people from 7 SFS MSMs to deepen the analysis.
A detailed description of the methodology as well
as the survey materials are provided in Appendix 2.
www.iied.org 9