Diverse economies and food democracy: implications for sustainability from an interdisciplinary perspective – Frontiers

 

Report on Sustainable Food System Transformation and the Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: The Global Food System Crisis and the 2030 Agenda

Current global food systems are failing to meet the targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The prevailing industrial agri-food model contributes significantly to environmental degradation, social inequality, and poor health outcomes, directly undermining key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Environmental Impact: The global food system is responsible for approximately 26-30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 70% of freshwater use, and is a primary driver of biodiversity loss, directly contravening SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• Social Inequality: Power imbalances concentrate profits in large transnational corporations while small-scale producers receive minimal returns (e.g., EU farmers earning 50% of the average worker). This exacerbates poverty and inequality, hindering progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Health Crisis: Poor-quality diets are a leading cause of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which account for 85% of deaths in Europe. This places an immense burden on public health systems and obstructs the achievement of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

This report synthesizes research on alternative food system models that align with the SDGs. It examines conceptual frameworks such as food democracy, food sovereignty, and agroecology, and analyzes case studies demonstrating their potential to foster a just and sustainable transition, thereby contributing to the holistic achievement of the 2030 Agenda.

2.0 Conceptual Frameworks for Sustainable Food System Transformation

Achieving the SDGs requires a paradigm shift away from the current corporate-driven food regime. This section outlines key conceptual frameworks that provide pathways for transforming food systems to be more democratic, equitable, and ecologically sound.

2.1 Food Democracy and Food Sovereignty: Pillars for SDG 16 and SDG 10

Food democracy and food sovereignty are foundational concepts for reconfiguring power relations within the food system, directly supporting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by promoting participatory and inclusive decision-making.

1. Food Democracy: This concept advocates for the active and meaningful participation of all citizens—producers, consumers, and public authorities—in shaping the food systems that affect them. It challenges the commodification of food and seeks to establish it as a public good. By empowering marginalized voices, food democracy is a critical tool for achieving SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
2. Food Sovereignty: Championed by movements like La Via Campesina, this concept asserts the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems. It prioritizes local and national markets, empowers small-scale producers, and promotes agroecological methods. Food sovereignty is essential for achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by ensuring communities have control over their food production and access to culturally appropriate, nutritious food.

Substantive food democracy requires subverting capitalist social-property relations that create economic unfreedom. This radical approach is necessary to de-commodify food and land, ensuring that the goals of SDG 1 and SDG 2 are not undermined by market imperatives.

2.2 Agroecology: A Pathway to SDG 2, SDG 13, and SDG 15

Agroecology is an integrated approach that applies ecological and social principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems. It offers a practical methodology for achieving multiple environmental and social SDGs.

• Contribution to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): By building resilience, diversifying crops, and relying on local renewable resources, agroecology enhances the stability and productivity of smallholder farms, which are critical for global food security.
• Contribution to SDG 13 (Climate Action): Agroecological practices reduce reliance on fossil fuels and synthetic fertilizers, sequester carbon in the soil, and decrease GHG emissions from agriculture.
• Contribution to SDG 15 (Life on Land): By mimicking natural ecosystems, agroecology promotes biodiversity, improves soil health, and protects natural resources, directly addressing the drivers of land degradation.

2.3 Diverse Economies: Fostering Inclusive Growth and Reducing Inequalities (SDG 8 & SDG 10)

The diverse economies framework challenges the capital-centric view of the economy by highlighting a wide range of non-market and alternative economic practices. This perspective is vital for creating economic models that support SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• Recognizing Alternative Practices: Initiatives like Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), cooperatives, and food-sharing networks represent community economies where interdependence is negotiated democratically.
• Building Resilience: By fostering local, community-based economic relationships, these models create more resilient and equitable systems that are less dependent on volatile global markets, contributing to the stability targeted by the SDGs.

3.0 Case Studies in Food System Transformation and SDG Implementation

This section presents empirical evidence from diverse global contexts, illustrating how alternative food initiatives are contributing to the SDGs on the ground and the challenges they face.

3.1 Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Germany: A Model for SDG 11, SDG 12, and SDG 16

CSAs represent a form of democratic experimentalism where consumers and producers collaborate to create a localized, sustainable food system, directly advancing several SDGs.

• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): CSAs decouple food production from market price volatility by having consumers share production risks. This fosters a direct connection to food, reduces waste, and promotes organic farming.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): As a key component of urban and peri-urban food systems, CSAs strengthen local economies and provide residents with access to fresh, healthy food.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): CSAs function as micro-democracies, with members participating in governance and decision-making. However, they face challenges related to inclusivity, as participation often requires a certain level of economic and cultural capital, which can be a barrier to achieving SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

3.2 Dacha Cooperatives in Estonia: Quiet Sustainability and Resilience (SDG 2 & SDG 11)

Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) in Eastern Estonian dacha cooperatives represents a widespread, informal alternative food network with significant implications for local sustainability and resilience.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Dachas provide a substantial amount of fresh, healthy, and organically grown food for households, enhancing food security and nutritional diversity, particularly for elderly and low-income populations.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): These practices embody “quiet sustainability” through agroecological methods like composting and organic fertilization. They foster strong community networks based on mutual aid and knowledge sharing.
• Challenges to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Dacha gardeners, often elderly members of a Russian-speaking minority, are frequently marginalized and their practices devalued. Their lack of political recognition hinders their ability to contribute more broadly to sustainable development policies.

3.3 Public Catering in Germany: Leveraging Procurement for SDG 3 and SDG 10

Public food procurement, particularly in schools, presents a significant leverage point for promoting sustainable food systems and advancing food justice.

1. Potential for SDG 3 and SDG 10: Municipalities can use their purchasing power to provide all children, regardless of socioeconomic background, with access to healthy, nutritious, and sustainably produced food. This directly addresses health equity and reduces inequality.
2. Barriers to Implementation: The potential is largely unrealized due to neoliberal policies that prioritize cost over quality, leading to the outsourcing of catering to private companies. This model often lacks transparency and mechanisms for democratic participation from pupils and parents, undermining SDG 16. The care work involved in food preparation is also widely unrecognized, a challenge related to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

3.4 The Odemira Region, Portugal: Contested Territories and the Fight for SDGs

The Odemira region exemplifies the conflict between two opposing agricultural models: a hyper-industrialized, export-oriented model and a traditional, small-scale peasant model. This clash has severe consequences for multiple SDGs.

• Undermining SDG 10, SDG 6, and SDG 15: The expansion of large-scale monocultures, supported by EU policy despite green objectives, leads to the marginalization of smallholder farmers, conflicts over water resources, and environmental degradation. This deepens inequalities and threatens ecosystems.
• Violations of SDG 8 (Decent Work): The industrial model is associated with precarious labor conditions and the exploitation of migrant workers, creating democratic deficits and social injustice.
• A Path Forward through Agroecology: The study found that proto-agroecological farms demonstrated the highest sustainability scores, proving that regenerative practices are viable and offer a pathway to achieving SDG 2 and SDG 15, even in stressed territories.

3.5 Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAs) in South Africa: Empowering Communities for SDG 1, SDG 2, and SDG 5

ROSCAs, known locally as stokvels, are informal, women-led savings groups that play a vital role in the social and economic fabric of low-income communities.

• Contribution to SDG 1 and SDG 5: Stokvels provide a crucial mechanism for savings and credit, empowering members, particularly women, and increasing household economic resilience.
• Potential for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Grocery stokvels use collective purchasing power to procure food, mitigating household food insecurity. However, their focus is often on economic value and long shelf-life staples rather than nutritional quality, highlighting a gap in achieving the health-related targets of SDG 3.
• Need for Partnerships (SDG 17): The informal nature of stokvels creates barriers to partnerships with formal institutions like banks and food retailers. Strengthening these connections could enhance their potential to improve access to affordable, healthy food.

4.0 The Role of Governance and Economic Actors in Advancing the SDGs

Transforming food systems requires supportive governance structures and a re-evaluation of the role of economic actors. This section examines mechanisms for enabling change and the primary obstacles to progress.

4.1 Multi-Level Governance and the FEAST Project: A Partnership for the Goals (SDG 17)

The Horizon Europe project FEAST (Food systems that support transitions to hEalthy And Sustainable dieTs) exemplifies a multi-level governance (MLG) approach to implementing food democracy. This aligns directly with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• MLG Framework: FEAST utilizes both vertical (Type I) and horizontal (Type II) governance models to integrate actors across different scales, from EU policy to local living labs.
• Action-Oriented Research: The project aims to co-develop community, technology, and policy-based solutions that empower citizens, especially vulnerable groups, to access healthier and more sustainable diets. This approach seeks to create a “Win-Win-Win-Win” system that benefits health (SDG 3), the environment (SDG 13, 15), the public sector, and businesses.

4.2 Redefining Economic Actors for Food Sovereignty (EAFS)

The food sovereignty discourse has often overlooked the role of diverse economic actors who are striving to build alternatives to the corporate food regime. A clearer conceptualization is needed to support their contribution to the SDGs.

1. Conceptual Framework for EAFS: Research identifies three key themes for understanding these actors:
   1. Conditions that shape EAFS: Including diverse motives and perspectives on transformation.
   2. Economic-related characteristics: Spanning the entire supply chain from production to distribution.
   3. Organizational characteristics: Such as forms of property, decision-making, and labor relations.
2. Importance for SDG 8 and SDG 12: Recognizing and supporting EAFS is crucial for building alternative supply chains and fostering economic models that are aligned with the principles of decent work and responsible production.

4.3 Challenges to Transformation: Corporate Power and Neoliberalism vs. the 2030 Agenda

The primary barrier to achieving a sustainable and just food system is the hegemonic power of the neoliberal capitalist model and the concentration of power in a few transnational corporations.

• Corporate Influence: The food industry actively blocks government attempts to implement public health measures and perpetuates unsustainable practices that maximize profit at the expense of environmental and social well-being. This undermines democratic governance and the achievement of nearly all SDGs.
• Structural Barriers: Lack of access to land, market dependency, and the erosion of public forums for deliberation prevent the scaling of alternative models. Overcoming these barriers requires a radical transformation of social-property relations and a direct challenge to the state-capital nexus.

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The evidence synthesized in this report demonstrates that the current industrial food system is fundamentally incompatible with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A transition toward systems grounded in food democracy, food sovereignty, and agroecology is imperative. This requires a multi-pronged approach that empowers local communities, reconfigures governance structures, and challenges entrenched corporate power.

Recommendations for Policy and Practice:

1. Strengthen Participatory Governance (SDG 16): Support the establishment and funding of Food Policy Councils and other platforms for democratic deliberation at municipal, regional, and national levels. Ensure the meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups, including small-scale producers, women, indigenous peoples, and low-income communities.
2. Promote Agroecology and Diverse Economies (SDG 2, 8, 12, 13, 15): Reorient agricultural subsidies and public investment away from industrial monocultures and toward small-scale, agroecological farming. Create supportive legal and financial frameworks for alternative economic models like cooperatives, CSAs, and other EAFS.
3. Leverage Public Procurement for the SDGs (SDG 3, 10, 11, 12): Mandate public institutions, especially schools and hospitals, to procure a high percentage of their food from local, organic, and agroecological sources. Treat public catering as an essential service and a tool for social justice, not a commodity.
4. Foster Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (SDG 17): Encourage and fund collaborative projects like FEAST that use multi-level governance to connect grassroots initiatives with policy-making processes. Facilitate partnerships between informal groups like stokvels and formal institutions to scale their impact.
5. Regulate Corporate Power: Implement stronger regulations to curb the market and political power of transnational food corporations, address anti-competitive practices, and ensure corporate accountability for environmental and social externalities.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   This goal is central to the article, which extensively discusses food security, malnutrition (both undernutrition and obesity), sustainable agriculture, and the economic viability of small-scale food producers. It critiques the current food system’s failure to end hunger and promote sustainable practices, while highlighting alternatives like agroecology, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), and Food Self-Provisioning (FSP) as pathways to achieving food security and improved nutrition.

2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

   The article is fundamentally about shifting from unsustainable to sustainable patterns of food consumption and production. It details the negative environmental impacts of the industrial food system, including high resource use, pollution, and waste. It advocates for sustainable practices such as organic farming, reducing pesticide and fertilizer use, localizing food systems, and minimizing food waste, all of which are core components of SDG 12.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The concept of “food democracy” is a primary theme, directly aligning with SDG 16’s emphasis on inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making. The article argues for democratizing food systems by giving producers, consumers, and communities more control over how food is produced and distributed, challenging the dominant power of corporations and advocating for more just and transparent governance structures.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The article repeatedly highlights the inequalities perpetuated by the current food system. This includes the economic marginalization of small-scale farmers, the exploitation of migrant workers, unequal access to healthy food leading to health disparities (“food deserts”), and the disempowerment of women and indigenous communities. It calls for a more equitable distribution of power and resources within the food system.

5. SDG 15: Life on Land

   The environmental consequences of the industrial food system on terrestrial ecosystems are a major concern. The article explicitly states that the global food system is responsible for a significant portion of “biodiversity loss,” “habitable land use,” and soil degradation. It promotes agroecology as a method that mimics natural ecosystems to conserve biodiversity and restore soil health.

6. SDG 13: Climate Action

   The article connects the food system directly to climate change, citing that it is responsible for “26% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” It discusses the need to mitigate these emissions through sustainable farming practices and references the European Green Deal’s goal of making Europe a climate-neutral continent, with food system reform as a key strategy.

7. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   The link between diet and health is clearly established. The article discusses how poor-quality diets promoted by the industrial food system are a leading cause of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in Europe. It advocates for systems that provide access to “healthy, affordable foods” to prevent disease and reduce the burden on public health systems.

8. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article critiques the poor labor conditions within the current food system, citing “human rights violations” and the exploitation of migrant workers in Europe. It also points out the economic injustice faced by farmers, noting that the “average EU farmer earning ∼50% of the average worker in the economy,” while large corporations reap substantial profits. Alternative models like CSAs and cooperatives are presented as ways to create more just economic relationships.

9. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   The article highlights the immense water footprint of the global food system, which accounts for “70% of freshwater use.” It also discusses “water pollution and depletion due to intensive irrigation and the use of high quantities of synthetic fertilisers and phytosanitary products,” as seen in the Odemira case study, and the resulting conflicts over water resources.

10. SDG 5: Gender Equality

    The role of women is discussed in various contexts, highlighting their leadership in informal savings groups (stokvels) in South Africa and their involvement in decision-making in various production systems. The analysis also calls for addressing gender inequalities and empowering women farmers, who are often among the most marginalized food producers.

11. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

    The article addresses urban and peri-urban food systems, including urban agriculture (dacha gardens), public catering in schools, and the challenges of food access in urban low-income settings. It explores how municipalities and local food policy councils can play a role in creating more sustainable and just urban food environments.

12. SDG 1: No Poverty

    The article connects food systems to poverty, noting that “the world’s most disadvantaged people work in agriculture.” It discusses how low incomes for small-scale producers and the economic precarity of rural populations contribute to poverty. Initiatives like stokvels are examined as community-based tools for economic empowerment and poverty alleviation.

13. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

    The article emphasizes the need for collaboration among diverse actors to transform food systems. It discusses multi-level governance (MLG), partnerships between producers and consumers (CSAs), and networks of civil society organizations, public authorities, and private sector actors (Food Policy Councils) as essential for driving change.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

  • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food. The article addresses this through its focus on food security, food justice, and the role of community initiatives like stokvels and dacha gardens in providing access to healthy food.
  • Target 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition. This is directly addressed in the discussion of the “dual burden of malnutrition” in South Africa, with both undernutrition and overnutrition being prevalent.
  • Target 2.3: Double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers. The article explicitly references this target in the Odemira case study, highlighting how the current system marginalizes small-scale producers and limits their income, which is described as being “∼50% of the average worker in the economy” in the EU.
  • Target 2.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices. This is a core theme, with extensive discussion on agroecology, organic farming, and traditional farming systems as resilient and sustainable alternatives to industrial agriculture. The Odemira study also explicitly mentions this target.

• Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

  • Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The article critiques the industrial food system’s inefficient use of land, water, and energy and promotes agroecology for its principles of resource efficiency and recycling.
  • Target 12.3: Halve per capita global food waste. The study on public school catering identifies “food waste reduction” as a major sustainability issue, linking it to low acceptance of meals and poor planning.
  • Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals. The article explicitly mentions the EU’s goal to “drastically reduce pesticide and synthetic fertiliser use (up to 50% by 2030)” as part of its Farm to Fork strategy.

• Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The entire concept of “food democracy” is about achieving this target within the food system by including marginalized voices—such as small-scale farmers, women, and low-income communities—in decision-making processes.

• Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

  • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. The article directly addresses this by highlighting the “exploitation of migrant workers,” “human rights infractions,” and “poor working conditions” in industrial agriculture in Europe.

• Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

  • Target 3.4: Reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The article directly links “consumption of poor-quality diets” to the high burden of NCDs in Europe, stating it is the “leading cause of death.”

• Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. This target is the essence of the “food democracy” concept discussed throughout the article, which calls for “forms of joint decision-making by food producers, consumers, public authorities, and stakeholders, at various scales.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• Quantitative Indicators

  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The article states the “global food system is responsible for 26% of global GHG emissions” and the EU’s agricultural sector for “10.3% of GHG emissions.” These figures serve as baseline indicators for measuring reductions (relevant to SDG 13).
  • Land and Water Use: Figures such as “50% of global habitable land use” and “70% of freshwater use” by the food system are provided, which can be used to track progress in resource efficiency (relevant to SDG 12, SDG 15, SDG 6).
  • Biodiversity Loss: The statement that the food system is responsible for “60% of biodiversity loss” is a key indicator of its environmental impact (relevant to SDG 15).
  • Pesticide and Fertilizer Use: The EU’s goal to reduce “pesticide and synthetic fertiliser use (up to 50% by 2030)” serves as a specific, measurable policy target and indicator (relevant to SDG 12).
  • Income of Farmers: The fact that the “average EU farmer earning ∼50% of the average worker in the economy” is a direct indicator of economic inequality and the viability of small-scale farming (relevant to SDG 2.3).
  • Health Outcomes: Statistics like “75% of all diseases and 85% of all deaths in Europe can be attributed to NCDs” and the “€700 billion annually” spent by EU governments to treat them are clear indicators of the health impact of current diets (relevant to SDG 3.4).
  • Food Insecurity Prevalence: The figure that “nearly 24% of households experience some form of food insecurity” in South Africa is a direct indicator for SDG 2.1.

• Qualitative and Process-Based Indicators

  • Existence and Growth of Alternative Food Networks: The number and vitality of CSAs, dacha cooperatives, stokvels, and food policy councils can serve as an indicator of citizen engagement and the shift towards more democratic and sustainable food systems (relevant to SDG 16.7, SDG 12).
  • Implementation of Agroecological Practices: The adoption rate of agroecological principles (e.g., biodiversity, nutrient recycling, elimination of agrochemicals) on farms can be used to measure the transition to sustainable agriculture (relevant to SDG 2.4). The TAPE tool mentioned in the Odemira study provides a framework for this.
  • Level of Participation in Food Governance: The degree to which small-scale farmers, consumers, and marginalized groups are included in decision-making bodies like food policy councils is a key indicator of progress towards food democracy (relevant to SDG 16.7).
  • Changes in Public Procurement Policies: The adoption of sustainability and regionality criteria in public tenders for institutions like schools is a concrete indicator of institutional change towards supporting sustainable food systems (relevant to SDG 11, SDG 12).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
SDG 2: Zero Hunger	2.1: End hunger and ensure access to food. 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition. 2.3: Double productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers. 2.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems.	– Prevalence of food insecurity (e.g., “nearly 24% of households” in South Africa). – Discussion of the “dual burden of malnutrition.” – Income of small-scale producers (e.g., “average EU farmer earning ∼50% of the average worker”). – Adoption of agroecological and organic farming practices.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.4: Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs).	– Percentage of diseases/deaths attributable to NCDs (“75% of all diseases and 85% of all deaths in Europe”). – Public expenditure on treating NCDs (“€700 billion annually” in the EU).
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe working environments.	– Reports of “human rights violations” and “exploitation of migrant workers” in agriculture.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.	– Level of inclusion of small farmers, women, and marginalized groups in food system decision-making.
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	12.2: Sustainable management of natural resources. 12.3: Halve food waste. 12.4: Sound management of chemicals.	– Efficiency of land and water use. – Discussion of food waste in school catering. – Policy goal to reduce pesticide/fertilizer use (“up to 50% by 2030” in the EU).
SDG 13: Climate Action	13.1: Strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards.	– Contribution of the food system to GHG emissions (“26% of global GHG emissions”).
SDG 15: Life on Land	15.3: Combat desertification and restore degraded land. 15.5: Halt biodiversity loss.	– Percentage of habitable land used for agriculture (“50% of global habitable land use”). – Contribution of the food system to biodiversity loss (“60% of biodiversity loss”).
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.7: Ensure inclusive and participatory decision-making.	– Existence and effectiveness of participatory bodies like Food Policy Councils and CSAs. – Level of democratic control by citizens over their food systems.

Source: frontiersin.org