Building Resilient Food Systems: Lessons for Australia from Global Models

Food, as simple as it is in nature, has been developed into a highly complex, man-made adaptive system.

Illustrated by Donella Meadows in her book, Thinking in Systems, she describes systems as a set of things – “people, cells, molecules – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behaviour over time.”

Within food systems, this includes all the actors and activities involved in producing, processing, distributing, retailing, consuming, and disposing of food – and the interaction between them all.

Food can be discussed at many spatial scales – global supply chains between nations, national, regional, and local – each scale having its own goals and uniqueness.

Therein lies the tension, as each domain will be vying for the development of its respective agenda. To address these diverse commitments, governance implementation has emerged from independent and national dialogues because it brings together actors from various sectors and institutions to work in an aligned, place-based manner in addressing collective priorities.

Of course, that is not to say implementing governance is not complex. On the contrary, governance that oversees an array of actors and industries is challenging, not only due to the power relations between stakeholders, but also adequate reflective learning and knowledge integration in managing the ecosystem.

This has not deterred stakeholders in planning for a more sustainable food system through the integration of governance models, with many popping up in various locations and scales across the globe.

For 25 years, the Brazilian city of Belo Horizonte has walked down the path of ensuring its inhabitants have a right to food.

When Mayor Patrus Ananias de Souza came into power in 1993, he was confronted with two problems: an estimated 38% percent of its 3.5 million inhabitants were living below the poverty line, and 18% of children under three were malnourished.

He established what has become known as the Secretariat for Nutrition and Food Security, part of the Ministry of Social Development, that aimed to improve social, health, and economic outcomes.

This endeavour involved mobilising a 20-member council comprising diverse actors: government sectors, labour unions, not-for-profits, producers, distributors, consumer groups, community groups, and research institutions to help design and coordinate a more sustainable food system.

Their multi-scaled approach, mandated by citizens’ right to food and the duty of government to realise those rights, involved a wide range of projects, from integrating supply chains to government procurement to promoting urban agriculture and consumer education.

This approach not only improved food outcomes in the locality but has also been cited as a leading ‘model’ by the World Bank and the UN.

The outcomes include:

• 72% reduction of under-five child mortality rates between 1993 to 2005.
• Extreme poverty rates fell from 17.2% in 1991 to 5.6% in 2010.
• Improved income for smallholder farmers due to guaranteed local procurement and prices.
• 3.3 million discounted meals were served in 2012, enabling better nutritional and food security outcomes in low-income households.

To this day, Belo Horizonte continues to influence other localities in designing and implementing food governance and policies.

Implementing key aspects of sustainable food programmes requires extensive organisation and coordination, yet urban centres like Cape Town in South Africa and Windhoek in Namibia have already begun adopting these measures, inspired by Belo Horizonte’s model.

Despite not having an established federal food policy, the US has been a forerunner in creating decentralised governance across its many states and councils.

Born in Tennessee in the 1980s which faced  an economic recession, the Food Policy Council (FPCs) was created to address vulnerabilities in the local food supply chain.

In the decades prior, problems were dealt with in an isolated fashion by a fragmented government response.

However, with the establishment of these councils, stakeholders could address food systems as a ‘whole’ – local problems were no longer isolated, as actors from the different sectors of the food system (production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management) were now given a forum to address food issues collectively.

Akin to Belo Horizonte, FPCs provided a multipronged approach for states in improving local food systems from:

• Community food charters to lead city and state-wide governance on equitable and sustainable food systems.
• Zoning and incentive policies for food stores, community gardens, and local production.
• Nutrition programs for healthier school food procurement and expansion of school breakfast programs.
• Policy reform in addressing food access, security, economic development and public health issues.

Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2025 highlighted the positive association when FPCs were present in leading food systems governance and strategies.

These included:

• 92.3% of municipalities with an FPC adopted at least one healthy food access policy, compared to 80.6% without.
• 1.5 times higher odds of municipalities that supported local grocery stores through tax incentives, grants, and healthier food programs.
• 2.2 times higher odds of having public transport or paratransit-related policies to support access to markets and grocery stores.
• 2 times higher odds of having planning documents to help support community initiatives like farmers markets and preserving land for agricultural use.

Whilst the study does not report on the long-term benefits of FPC-led policies, it does provide compelling evidence that incorporating diverse representation from a governance level serves as an effective vehicle in creating environments conducive to broader public health benefits.

In the case of Australia’s food systems, non-governmental bodies and advocacy groups have been pushing to incorporate governance at all levels of government to help build capacity, capability, and security for future shocks.

In November of 2024, the Legislative Assembly Environment and Planning Committee of Victoria held an inquiry that delved into securing the state’s food supply.

This inquiry highlighted many issues that the current agricultural governance model had in meeting the needs of the state’s diverse food system stakeholders.

Concerns included:

• A lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of all actors in Victoria’s food system, and poor accountability.
• A siloed approach to food systems that does not acknowledge the wicked challenges that impact food supply and security.
• A lack of prioritisation for local food production that addresses human rights and health dimensions.

Currently, there is ambiguity about the government’s role in food systems, which has led to a fragmented response in coordinating and harmonising subsequent policies.

Many departmental agencies have unique policy positions, which overlap and compete with each other in one way or another, ultimately affecting the state’s ability to foster food system resiliency.

Victoria’s urban sprawl has grown rapidly, encroaching on productive peri-urban agricultural fields. Planning fragmentation and land-use pressures have created economic and operational barriers that have not only made it difficult for small-to medium-scale farmers to remain competitive, but also reduced local food production capacity for metropolitan consumers.

These issues have been compounded by food policies that tend to govern agricultural output, favouring large corporations and leading to a monoculture in production, transport, and retail.

The effects of this monoculture were laid bare during the state’s COVID-19 response, which saw multiple shocks across the supply chain that invariably led to increases in food insecurity, food waste, and a drop in overall production.

Like the US and Belo Horizonte, a governmental response is required. As Nick Rose, Executive Director of Sustain: The Australian Food Network, underscored during one of the inquiries, “Victoria needs an overarching framework to tackle the food system and food security challenges that [it] faces.”