Food Systems Transformation in Practice: Key Takeaways from Expert Exchange with FAO and NFP Network

“The time is now!” said Ms Corinna Hawkes, Director Agrifood Systems and Food Safety Division at FAO, during a recent expert meeting with the NFP network. Amid growing demands on food systems and limited resources, a window of opportunity has opened to implement a systemic approach—moving beyond silos, connecting interventions, and focusing on real outcomes.

The expert meeting was meant to jointly reflect on how to move from systems thinking to systems doing in food systems transformation. As NFP Director Mr Ivo Demmers underlined in his opening remarks, the objective was clear: improve coherence—not only in policy but especially in implementation—by sharing lessons from real-world interventions and exploring how Dutch and international approaches can inform action worldwide.

Systems thinking must lead to systems doing

There is consensus that embracing complexity is essential, but the challenge lies in putting it into practice. FAO and others are taking strategic entry points as levers to shift broader systems, like for example specific value chains, seed systems, or informal markets. “No better place to go to, than where it is already done.” Real examples from the FAO portfolio include import substitution in Sierra Leone, integrating nutrition into financing decisions in Burundi, and using agri-tourism to strengthen rural livelihoods in Albania. The entry points can be used to build co-benefits, while it is also important to look into and address trade-offs. 

In Burundi, FAO worked with local stakeholders, including farmers and government actors, to better understand how food systems could be leveraged to improve nutrition. Rather than focusing narrowly on agricultural production, the initiative started by engaging local knowledge holders and examining how different parts of the system (production, access, consumption) were interconnected.

The approach led to a shift in how resources were allocated, including budget and programme focus, towards interventions that could more directly deliver nutrition outcomes, rather than treating nutrition as a separate or downstream issue.

Start where you are, with what you know

Systemic change must be embedded in national contexts, not imposed externally. Countries already have actors, agendas, and institutions in place. International support should strengthen existing processes rather than create parallel ones. This includes engaging local knowledge and aligning with national priorities, as FAO is doing in multiple country partnerships.

Governance and coordination are key but complex

Transforming food systems requires joint planning, inclusive governance structures, and long-term flexibility. However, coordination takes time, funding, and often faces misaligned incentives. As several participants noted, without investing in the people and institutions who “connect the dots,” systemic change risks stalling. It is not just about the plan, it is also about the planning process and who’s involved.

In Tanzania, Mozambique, and Indonesia, GAIN’s Nourishing Food Pathways programme works collaboratively with local city governments and street vendors to drive food system transformation that is both systemic and equitable. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a vital role in advancing more sustainable and inclusive food system practices.

Across the African continent, 85 universities of the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM), strengthened activities on supporting the translation of research into business, co-certifying innovation facilitator training, and expanding e-learning on innovation management. In partnership with the EU DeSIRA-LIFT programme (Wageningen University & Research), these efforts address key capacity gaps within the knowledge ecosystem, though long-term impact remains challenged by limited resources and differing national priorities among member institutions.

Learning Must Be Shared, Not Isolated

Systemic change requires peer learning, co-creating knowledge, feedback loops, and systems data that flows back to communities and decision-makers. Municipal learning networks in Brazil, co-created training in Rwanda, and open data initiatives like IDH’s support for supply chain transparency are examples of how learning and feedback loops can support systems transformation. Real learning happens when it is embedded in governance and backed by open knowledge ecosystems.

In Rwanda, it became clear that ministries, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, did not initially see the relevance of working beyond their traditional sectoral boundaries. To address this, a co-created learning module was developed with national stakeholders to build shared understanding of why cross-sector collaboration is essential for food systems transformation.

This module was not imposed from outside. It was co-designed with local institutions and government actors, ensuring relevance and ownership. The training helped ministries grasp how their actions impact and are interconnected with other parts of the system, such as nutrition, trade, and environmental policy.

Systemic challenges: dilemmas we must acknowledge

The discussion with representatives from various universities, development organisations and the private sector revealed several crucial challenges:

⏳ Coordination takes time. How do we encourage cooperation, while monitoring the risk of too much talking and too little acting?

There need to be incentives and funding for the connectors, for the time needed to create the connections.

💰 Funding is both an obstacle and an incentive. Food system change cannot rely solely on external resources. Domestic budget alignment, reform of harmful subsidies and creative and flexible financing mechanisms are all necessary.

🔍 Measurement gaps remain. The importance of monitoring mechanisms such as the Food Systems Countdown Initiative is recognised. We must assess not only the end results, but also changes in governance, capacity for collaboration and systemic integration. In doing so it is important to gain evidence of trade offs too, to show where improving one outcome might negatively affect another.

🧩 Implementation often falls between the cracks. The “missing middle layer”, local actors, information services, SMEs, needs targeted support and recognition as key implementers of the system. Domestic and global private sector are necessary to implement the changes, supported by benchmarking instruments that encourage corporate social responsibility.

🧭 Non-financial incentives are more difficult to structure, but are crucially important. These include political will, institutional incentives and cultural shifts in power and ownership.

Where to go from here

FAO is preparing to release a paper (expected late July) that outlines a more operational model for a systems approach. This will reflect lessons from across regions and sectors and offer guiding principles for governments and partners.

Meanwhile, organisations in the Dutch and global networks are already acting. From systems-informed business support models to policy-focused multi-stakeholder platforms, the shift from silos to systems is happening. But it must be nurtured and accelerated.

As one participant said: “Recognising that a systems approach is happening is not enough. We need to see where the assets are, and what’s still missing.”

Final reflection: keep doing, together

This meeting was not a conclusion but a stepping stone—an opportunity to align, reflect, and move forward with greater coherence. Food systems transformation isn’t just a theory. It is already being implemented, in pieces, across the globe. The task now is to connect those pieces, build shared capacity, and support the people and institutions making it happen. The upcoming UNFSS+4 Stocktake in Addis Ababa will be a critical milestone to assess progress and explore ways to accelerate implementation.