Mapping Policy Coherence in National UK Food Systems (2008– 2024): Analysing the Integration of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies, LEAP 2025 conference, Oxford

This study maps n=157 UK national food policies.

This study aims to:

1) Identify and map UK national food policies regarding climate change mitigation and adaption strategies from 2008 - 2024.

2) Highlight departments responsible for publication, thematic areas addressed in the policies, policy objectives and implementation strategies.

UK food systems drives approximately 35% of national GHG emissions.1 Urgent coordinated reform is needed for enhanced resilience and sustainability.

1. Food systems are central to addressing global challenges such as:

o Social equity,

o food security,

o environment and sustainability.2

2. Many food systems challenges exists, such as: o Malnutrition,

o biodiversity loss,

o climate change (greenhouse gases), o environmental degradation.2

Problems:

o UK National food policies are siloed and therefore limited in their ability to achieve systematic change.3,4

o The extent to which climate change considerations are integrated into food policy is ambiguous.3

Need for change:

o Integrated food policies are needed to address the issue.3–5

o A food systems approach is needed that recognises the inherent complexity.6,5

Figure 1. Scatterplots with trend lines showing thematic areas identified in policy documents based on the FSCI framework. Each plot illustrates relationships between documents published in thematic areas and year of publication.11

Methods and Materials

The study followed Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines7 and JBI scoping review manual for data screening following PRISMA guidelines.8

oWe conducted an electronic policy search of the FAOLEX database in November 2024.9

o Rayyan software was used for data screening and analysis.10

Keywords

“climate change”, “net zero”, resilience, “global warming”, “climate emergency”, “global heating”, “climate adaption”, “carbon reduction”, “emissions reduction”, “carbon neutrality”, “greenhouse gases”, Diet AND “Climate Change”, “Planetary Health Diets”, “Planetary Health”, “Planetary Health” AND Diet.

Data Screening inclusion criteria followed the Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI).2

diets, nutrition and health

diet quality, food security, food environments, policies affecting

food environments

environment and climate

land use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, pollution, biosphere integrity

livelihoods, poverty, and equity

poverty and income, employment, social protection, rights

governance

shared vision, strategic planning and policies, effective implementation, accountability

resilience and sustainability

exposure to shocks, resilience capacities, agrobiodiversity, food security stability

Findings

o N=157 policy documents integrate climate change considerations.

o Limited policy coherence.

o Climate change considerations largely confined to

production side measures (agriculture).

o Other parts of the food value chain remain overlooked.

o All thematic areas show a positive trend with an increase in the number of documents published, however the trend is not statistically significant (Figure 1).

Figure 2. Frequency of thematic areas in screened policy documents (n=157) based on the FSCI framework. Diets, nutrition and health 71% (n=112), environment and climate 95% (n=149), governance 100% (n=157), resilience and sustainability 49% (n=77), livelihoods poverty and equity 57% (n=90) and all themes addressed in the same document 45% (n= 70).

Figure 3. Year of publication of screened documents from 2008 to 2024. Years with the highest number of documents published: 2024 (n=23), 2014 (n=19) and 2017 (n=18).

Figure 4. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for database searches and food policy document screening (2008-2024).8

Conclusions

o UK food policy explicitly considers climate change mitigation and adaptation practices, however, the extent to which these practices are integrated is limited.

o Measures related to production and agricultural practices are integrated across all five thematic areas.

o The analysis highlights a gap in the attention given to resilience and sustainability—key aspects that determine the vulnerability of food systems to external shocks and their capacity to withstand climate change.

o These themes are predominantly framed through the lens of agricultural production, with insufficient emphasis on broader food security concerns.

o Need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to food policy that considers all aspects of the food system.

References

1. Forbes, H.; Fisher, K.; Parry, A. UK Food System GHG Emissions - Total UK Food & Drink Consumption Footprint and Pathway to a 50% Reduction by 2030; VFU006-001; WRAP: Banbury UK, 2021. https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2021-10/WRAP-UK-Food-System-GHG-Emissions-Technical-Report_0.pdf (accessed 2025-03-31).

2. Fanzo, J.; Haddad, L.; Schneider, K. R.; Béné, et al. Viewpoint: Rigorous Monitoring Is Necessary to Guide Food System Transformation in the Countdown to the 2030 Global Goals. Food Policy 2021, 104, 102163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163.

3. Latter, R.; Wentworth, J. Measuring Sustainable Environment-Food System Interactions; Research Briefing; UK Parliament: London, UK, 2023. https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn- 0702/ (accessed 2025-02-04).

4. Parsons, K. How Connected Is National Food Policy in England? Mapping Cross-Government Work on Food System Issues. London: Food Research Collaboration; Rethinking Food Governance; Report 2; Centre for Food Policy City University of London, 2021.

5. Parsons, K.; Barling, D.; Lang, T. UK Policymaking Institutions and Their Implications for Integrated Food Policy. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability; Elsevier, 2018; Vol. 3, pp 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.af2s.2018.09.005.

6. OECD. Making Better Policies for Food Systems; OECD, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.

7. O’Brien, B. C.; Harris, I. B.; Beckman, et al. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad. Med. 2014, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.

8. Page, M. J.; McKenzie, J. E.; Bossuyt, et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. 9. FAO. FAOLEX Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/en/?search=adv (accessed 2024-11-29).

10. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; et al. Rayyan—a Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5 (1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. 11. Van Rossum, G.; Drake, F. L. Python 3 Reference Manual, 2009.