1. Introduction

In Chapter IV, it has been shown that, in most countries of Latin America, as in the rest of the world, the organizational structure of the state is insufficient to have a general and comprehensive vision of the national food system. The organizational structures are disarticulated as several independent compartments acting mostly uncoordinated and, therefore, disconnected from the economic, productive and social processes that comprise food systems, which increasingly require a systemic vision.

The absence of a systemic vision has brought about serious difficulties and the inability to define and implement adequate public policies for the promotion and regulation of food systems that comply with the five necessary attributes, as developed in Chapter III.

These features of the institutional organization in each country have also resulted in deficiencies and similar limitations in the institutional structure of global governance mechanisms. At the international level, we find an insufficient governance to accompany and guide the processes that have led to the rapid development and growing complexity of the global food system. Evidence of this is that, currently, there is no organization or institutional mechanism with the exclusive mandate of safeguarding the development, configuration or operation of the global food system as a whole.

The UN organization more directly related to food issues is FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), which includes in its name the concept of food; however, this is not clearly reflected in its basic, guiding documents. As a result, throughout its institutional life, FAO has dedicated its efforts mainly to agriculture and rural poverty. Although it is true that, during the last three decades, food safety has been a focus area, attaining important achievements, the organization has not advanced an approach that includes the global food system in all its dimensions and complexities.

Other bodies within the United Nations have institutional mandates that include partial aspects of the food system: a) the World Food Program (WFP) is in charge of food crises; b) the UN Environment Program (UNEP) is in charge of issues related to the environment; c) the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in charge of multilateral trade issues; and d) the World Health Organization (WHO) takes care of issues related to human health and its relationship with zoonotic diseases. For its part, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has been in charge of financing the poorest countries and rural sectors to improve their quality of life and get them out of poverty. It also intervenes in the financing of projects aimed at improving food safety for poor populations

The World Bank is an important factor in the area. Even if its mandate is broad and includes all sectors subject to international financing, it has had an important role in funding projects directly related to some aspects of food systems, including food insecurity situations.

There are also other global organizations with specific mandates related to the global food system, such as the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and regional organizations such as the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), which is associated to the Organization of American States (OAS) and has a specific mandate on agriculture and rural development.

On the other hand, the UN Secretariat has a series of programs, initiatives and special undersecretariats directly linked to foods.

However, as can be seen in the description of such bodies in the following section, none of these organizations or institutional mechanisms has an at once specific and broad mandate that includes the food system as a whole. On the contrary, UN bodies often compete among themselves or carry out overlapping activities that evince a lack of coordination in their actions.

The most ambitious attempt to achieve a coordinated, systematic action was the creation of the Food Safety and Nutrition Program by the UN Secretariat in 2000, under David Navarro, who was unable to lead the rest of the bodies in a common vision and joint action on the specific topics related to food and nutritional safety at a global level.

The G20 is a special case. Even if it is not an organization in a formal sense, with its focus onpublic finances, their declarations and recommendations have extended, throughout time, to cover many other areas of international policy, especially in terms of the work developed by some affinity groups,the T20 in particular.^[1]

The work of the T20 has included trade as a topic of special significance. In recent years, more specifically during the Argentine presidency in 2018, agriculture and nutrition received special attention from the T20, the B20, and the meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture.

Finally, in 2020, the Secretary General of the United Nations summoned the United Nations Food Systems Summit in September 2021, with the idea of having a general discussion to develop the concept and suggest general policies for a global food system, in response to the new and urgent needs of humankind.

This call is a very significant event and may lead to the beginning of a collective action at an international level. A possible result of the Summit and its follow-up activities would be the creation of an international governance mechanism for the global food system. This would represent an essential and very necessary step in the development of humankind. Such mechanism could contribute to promote the dialogue and collaboration among all countries for the implementation of national policies and programs. At the same time, it would be useful for streamlining the activities undertaken by UN organizations, as well as other regional entities, thus contributing to a more balanced and fair development of the global food system.

Such a result would be an enormous contribution towards building global governance mechanisms able to effectively organize a food system appropriate to present and future needs.

This chapter describes, in the first section, the current situation of those organizations that include some relevant aspects for the food system. The weaknesses of the current organizational framework to effectively affect the operation and development of the global food system are also analyzed. In the second section, we advance some useful ideas to build a more powerful and potentially more effective organizational structure leading to a better global governance of the food system.

2. The existing organizational structures

The current global organizational structures directly related to one or more aspects of the food system are many and very diverse. The most important are those that belong to the UN system, although there are other institutions, already mentioned, that have a significant role.

2.1. The United Nations Organisms

The United Nations includes a number of organisms of considerable size and incidence in global governance issues. However, their mandates only include partial aspects of the global food system.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) is the UN entity with the broadest and most explicit mandate regarding the development and governance of the global food system. Its official name places food and agriculture on an equal footing, and its basic document, its Constitution, privileges agriculture but also includes, very significantly, issues related to nutrition^[2].

The Constitution of FAO identifies as its member countries’ main objectives for individual and collective actions the following matters:

• Raising the nutrition and livelihood levels for the people under their respective jurisdictions
• Improving production performance and distribution effectiveness for all foods and agricultural products
• Improving the welfare of the rural population
• Contributing to the expansion of the global economy and freeing mankind from hunger

We can see that, although the stress is clearly placed upon crop and animal production affairs and the welfare of the rural population, the issue of food production and distribution receives significant attention.

On the contrary, if FAO’s institutional mandate is analyzed from the perspective of the five dimensions/attributes described in Chapter III as the core elements of the global food system, we can see that only dimensions 1 — production and productivity to eliminate hunger in the world — and 5 —economic and social sustainability — are fully included.

Dimensions 2, 3 and 4 — environmental sustainability, food safety and human nutritional concerns, respectively — are not fully contemplated in the institutional mandate of FAO. This omission is explained by the fact that those issues were not urgent matters in the international agenda at the time of FAO’s foundation, and have only acquired a strong political dimension in the last few years. Additionally, the emphasis on agriculture and rural development was determined by the fact that the de facto representatives before the institution’s governance are the Ministers of Agriculture of each member country.

An analysis of FAO’s organizational structure and its main work programs shows a certain level of disconnection with its basic institutional mandate. This disconnection is especially evident in three elements with a significant position as regards the global food system.

The first has to do with the little attention that FAO has given to the components of food processing, distribution and marketing, in spite of being expressly included in its institutional mandate. In the organizational structure of the entity, there is no institutional niche responsible for these aspects of the food system. Only since the year 2016, FAO has organized its work schedule around five big Programs, one of which has food systems as its main focus. Based on this new organization, FAO started to incorporate some of the broadest issues related to food systems. In the year 2017, these programs were institutionalized within FAO’s organizational structure, only to be later eliminated in 2019.

A second disconnection is referred to FAO’s important work on topics related to the conservation of natural resources and, more recently, global warming and the global sustainability of food production, in spite of these topics not being expressly incorporated in its institutional mandate. This is explained by the growing importance and urgency of environmental sustainability, the interest of its member countries, and the availability of extra-quota resources, which allow the organization to work on these themes.

Finally, a third element to mention is the little work carried out by FAO as regards dimensions/attributes 3 and 4 — the issues of food safeness and nutritional qualities, respectively. These concerns have increased in the last few years and have taken some preeminence, partly as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, in the area of safeness, FAO has had a very relevant and specific activity through the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex is a highly autonomous unit which has effectively dealt with certain aspects related to food safeness and, in particular, the standards used in international trade in relation to potentially toxic products.

Therefore, it could be concluded that FAO has had a very high degree of specialization in the development of agriculture, food safety and rural poverty. Consequently, it has neglected a broad and inclusive vision on the global food system, lacking in its working program a comprehensive treatment of the five dimensions/attributes described in Chapter III.

The WFP (World Food Program) was created as a special program of FAO. However, as time passed, it has become a virtually independent organization with its own governing bodies and budget. Its mandate is narrow and clearly focused on dealing with crisis situations in its humanitarian components, more specifically on addressing the alimentary needs of the affected people. Notwithstanding, in the last two decades, the WFP has progressed in several countries of Africa and Central America in supporting for food production activities, especially crop and livestock production systems that contribute to providing food for the poor.

The entity develops most of its activities on the field and has no important function in the gathering of statistics and information or developing standards with normative value.

The main mandate of the IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) is to invest in rural poverty, attempting to resolve the causes that produce it. Its focus is to develop agricultural systems able to sustain the rural population, based on the self-supply of food and the generation of income from its participation in rural labor activities. When the IFAD grants loans to countries to carry out systemic public policies and investments in rural territories, it contributes to improving food safety and production by the poorest rural population in the lowest step of the productive scale.

The UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) is the UN organization in charge of safeguarding all issues related to environmental sustainability. Its main function is to set the environmental agenda at a global level.^[3]

The Organization has an extremely important mandate in terms of current global concerns, but narrow in terms of the multiplicity and range of topics included in the concept of a global food system.

UNEP’s work program has been focused on this very specific institutional mandate; therefore, it has tried only marginally to define or influence the construction of a more efficient and balanced global food system. Its efforts have been related to dimension/attribute number 2, referred to environmental sustainability. An example of this is the work in the use of chemical fertilizers and antimicrobial agents in agriculture.

WHO (World Health Organization) is the United Nations organization in charge of human health in all of its dimensions. Its Constitution sets forth in Section 1 that the purpose of WHO will be to “reach the highest possible degree of health for all peoples”.^[4] This general regulation has been construed in the 2019-2023 General Work Program as “promoting health, preserving global safety and serving vulnerable populations.”

Its institutional mandate is clearly circumscribed to human health, and its activities include the research, design and negotiation of global standards and an active participation to support national health systems.

In recent years, the organization has incorporated to its work program two very relevant topics for the global food system: a) animal diseases that could be related to human health. This relationship is expanding and acquiring greater importance for the growing links between humans and animals as a consequence of climate change; and b) the attention to increasingly frequent non-transmissible metabolic diseases, especially in developed societies, which are related to sedentarism and the quality of diets. On the other hand, it does not include pay special attention in its work plan to topics related to food safeness.

The WTO (World Trade Organization) is the most recent of the United Nations organisms. Created in 1995, it has a precise mandate based on two main functions: a) serving as an institutional space for the negotiations that lead to the establishment of multilateral trade rules; and b) establishing and managing the necessary institutional mechanisms to resolve commercial controversies between member countries.

The entity is devoted to trade in a broad sense, with agricultural trade as an important part of its mandate. However, this is one of the areas with the least progress in terms of the liberalization of multilateral trade. Given that international trade is a core element of the global food system, an effective WTO and the construction of an adequate environment for agricultural and food trade is very important.

Two particularly relevant topics as regards agricultural negotiations are: a) the negotiations tending to dismantle tariff protection systems and domestic support, especially direct price support measures which are highly distortive and affect food trade; and b) the incorporation of trade standards and regulations related to environment protection and food safeness, currently in implementation process. These new standards must be based on scientific principles and avoid becoming new non-tariff barriers of a discretional nature.

However, and in spite of the importance of the described topics, the organism does not have a mandate for the development of the global food system from a systemic perspective.

2.2. The G20 and its support groups

Although the G20 was created as an instance of coordination for the international financial system, throughout the years, it has incorporated other topics of global dimension. One of them was the global food system, which received much attention in 2016 during the Argentine presidency. Both the T20 and the B20 focused on several aspects referred to the global food system.

The works of the B20 were especially important. In the main publication edited by the organism, with the active participation of the food industry private sector, there are important commitments linked to the nutritional aspects of food and a series of recommendations on how to progress towards a better global food system.^[5]

Another important contribution was made by the Inter-American Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS) through an elaborate document on food systems in the American continent.^[6]

2.3. Other multilateral and regional organizations

In addition to UN organisms, the G20 and its affinity groups — in particular, the B20, the T20 and the Science Academies —, there are other international organizations with competences directly related to food systems. Two previously mentioned cases are specially important: a) the European Commission, and b) IICA (Inter American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture), particularly relevant in the American continent.

The European Commission represents an important number of countries which are very vocal in the treatment of global topics, and its voice transcends its regional dimension. Its recent proposals, identified as the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork, are inclusive and represent topnotch proposals as regards the possible development of food systems from EU member countries. In particular, the treatment given to the construction of environmentally sustainable food systems represents an ambitious and inclusive proposal that will have a large impact at a global level.

IICA (Inter American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture) is the entity specialized in agriculture of the Inter-American System. It was created in 1942, making it one of the oldest multilateral bodies. Its mission is defined as “encouraging, promoting and supporting the efforts of the member states to achieve their agricultural development and rural welfare by means of an excellent international cooperation”.

IICA has oriented its work program towards its institutional mission. Its focus is on the rural environment and agriculture in a broad sense, including topics related to environmental sustainability, crops and animal health and trade. Even if this program does not include all the dimensions which are relevant to food systems, it is sufficiently broad to allow for the Institute to act as an authorized voice on the perspective, realities and interests of the American continent’s food systems.

3. Institutional mandates and the need for more coordination

The brief analysis of the institutional mandates and programmatic orientations of the main multilateral and regional organizations clearly show that none of their constitutions has a comprehensive and complete view of all the aspects related to the global food system. The UN organisms’ constitutive mandates are limited to specific aspects of food systems and, in most cases, are solely focused on one of the five dimensions/attributes introduced in Chapter III. FAO is a partial exception, as it has the broadest constitutional mandate, which includes, at least partially, several aspects related to the five mentioned dimensions/attributes. The weakness of not including all the necessary dimensions in its mandate is worsened by the fact that the Conference — the main component of its governance system — comprises the Ministers of Agriculture of the member countries, which generally have an agriculture-focused vision about food systems.

The G20 is an important and interesting instance of global governance. As mentioned above, in 2018, during the Argentine Presidency, G20 deliberations placed great value on the global food system. However, the limited number of countries that compose this institutional mechanism subtracts authority and leadership on food-related issues with a high political link to civil society all over the world.

Finally, in regards to regional organizations, it is important to highlight the important role of the European Commission in the conceptual definition, identification and development of standards to regulate the food systems. Even if its proposals have been made specifically for the European Union, they are strongly influential within the global scope and had a salient conceptual influence in the deliberations of the Food Systems Summit.

On the other hand, IICA, with its mandate and programmatic capacity in the area of food systems, had an important role in the UNFSS, voicing the visions and interests of the region.

Options for strengthening the governance of the global food system

The main conclusion arising from the analysis of the competences and capacities of the existing international institutions is that existing global governance mechanisms are weak. The Food Systems Summit has given a new importance and urgency to the task of building a global institutional mechanism, devoted to developing an efficient and balanced global food system and contributing with individual countries to improve national food systems.

The first question in regards to this challenge is whether it is possible to make progress on such a politically and institutionally complex issue, at a critical time in economic and political terms for the entire world. The answer to this question must be affirmative. The economic and political importance of the global food system, both now and in the future, requires an immediate and coordinated action aimed at optimizing the sustainable use of natural resources, ensuring food quality and safeness, and guaranteeing an adequate access to food for all the inhabitants of the planet.

A collective action agreed upon by all countries, or at least by the main food producers and exporters, is an essential step that requires a worldwide institutional structure, different from and much more operative than the existing one.

The current international experience suggests that the most direct road to make this possible is to call for the creation of a new international convention, similar to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This Convention has progressively established general guidelines, objectives and institutional mechanisms, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to gather information and establish parameters and indicative goals. The latter serve as a methodological basis for countries to gather information about their specific situation and commit themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, periodically presenting nationally determined objectives. Additionally, the Convention includes other institutional mechanisms designed to achieve commitments and propose actions in other areas related to the preservation of natural resources.

The institutionalization through international agreement, with features similar to the UNFCCC and focused on the problems of the global food system, could be a good way to progress.

The new convention should be accompanied by an organizational structure capable of carrying out its inherent global tasks. It should also support the countries to conduct the necessary studies and implement the necessary actions to comply with the commitments made within the framework of the Convention.

This organizational structure should be able to permanently perform a number of functions building on what has been achieved in the Food Systems Summit. In addition to periodically organizing the Convention, reaching agreements and obtaining commitments from member countries, other important functions should be:

1. Generating and gathering relevant information for the global food system;
2. Developing a comprehensive view of the global food system, including a conceptual framework of analysis;
3. Identifying problems and needs and proposing technical and behavioral policies and rules, both national and global, to contribute to their solution;
4. Helping to coordinate activities developed by UN organisms aimed at providing technical support to member countries for the development of their national food systems; and
5. Organizing follow-up activities to ensure compliance by member countries as regards their commitments and nationally determined contributions.

This set of activities and responsibilities is similar to those developed within the scope of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

It is not easy to imagine, let alone to create, an organizational instance able to comply with each and all of these functions. However, the reasonably successful experience of the UNFCCC suggests possible ways to organize the necessary institutional structure capable of supporting a convention focused on the global food system.

Three main options arise from this analysis, which would be natural and perhaps politically possible ways to progress. These options are, in fact, three variations on the same scheme that closely follows the actual scope of the UNFCCC.

The three proposals are:

1. Developing an organizational structure to provide the political and technical support to the new Convention, similar to the existing one within the scope of the UNFCCC. The main function of this organizational structure would be to comply with the five points described above.
2. In addition to (1), vesting FAO with the responsibility of providing technical cooperation to those countries that have undertaken commitments within the framework of the Convention, that is to say, the tasks defined in point 4 above; and
3. In addition to (1), modifying FAO’s constitutional mandate and thus its work program, so as to make it comply with the five technical and scientific functions described above, which are necessary for the correct operation of the Convention.

Option 1: A new Convention for the global food system with an organizational structure capable of providing political and technical support, similar to the UNFCCC

The organization of the UN Food Systems Summit has highlighted the importance and urgency of achieving an efficient and harmonic development of the global food system and the existing concerns about this issue at a global level. Achieving progress at a global level will require agreements between countries to advance jointly in balanced actions and commitments, which should be consistent and fair in relation to the historical responsibilities and present possibilities of each country.

Following this line of thought, the first necessary step would be to convene a Food Systems Convention with the specific mandate of organizing a negotiation and implementation process similar to those on climate change. This Convention would be the context in which the countries would reach commitments on objectives and necessary actions to develop their national food systems, according to those guidelines and standards agreed in the Convention.

The Convention would require an organizational support system following the lines of the three options described above. Its basic core could be built using the institutional mechanisms created to organize the Food Systems Summit, which included the participation of the Secretary General of the United Nations, a series of advising and consultation groups, and mechanisms for collaboration and coordination with UN organisms.

In this organizational scheme, the rest of the existing institutions would continue with their current functions, recognizing the political leadership of the new Convention and the agreements achieved through it.

Option 2: Progressing with Option 1, but assigning to FAO the responsibility for providing the necessary technical support to member countries

The previous sections point out that the current constitutional mandate of FAO covers, only in a partial and incomplete manner, the work areas implicitly included in the concept of a global food system. Consequently, even if FAO has developed a work plan that attends, at least partially, to several areas related to food systems, its program is incomplete and partial in connection to this area.

However, with some adjustments to its organization and work program, FAO could fully incorporate all the technical components of food systems and concentrate its technical cooperation tasks in support of the countries on every aspect arising from their participation in the new Convention, helping them to comply with the undertaken commitments.

Option 3: Progressing with Option 1, but entrusting FAO with the realization of the five necessary technical and scientific actions. To such end, FAO would have to reform its constitutional mandate to fully include all aspects related to food systems

Option 3 deepens the line of thought of Option 2, increasing the responsibilities entrusted to FAO in order to include all necessary technical and scientific tasks for the correct operation of the Convention.

To make this possible, FAO’s organizational structure and work program should be reformed to include and fully develop all necessary technical areas pertaining to a comprehensive development of the national and global food systems.

In this sense, a reformed FAO could perform the five functions listed above with particular effectiveness. In order to carry out these new responsibilities, FAO would not only need a comprehensive institutional reform but also an exceptional increase in its budgetary support.