Search

IntroductionEfforts are underway to transform food systems in light of their contributions to global challenges like climate change. However, food systems are highly complex, involve noteworthy place-based challenges, and there is often debate and disagreement among experts over appropriate technologies or interventions to prioritize. Tracking progress, and understanding these differences, is thus a critical need.MethodsWe surveyed food systems experts in eight countries about their preferences for 20 different food system transformation strategies and their sentiment regarding whether current initiatives are sufficient to meet 2030 goals for climate and biodiversity.ResultsExpert sentiment is overwhelmingly negative, and experts are concerned about multiple “transformation gaps,” including gaps in ambition, strategy, and implementation. Expert rankings for 20 strategies vary notably among countries and in ways that do not match those same experts’ rankings for the strength of the science behind each lever. Factor analysis reveals four distinct theories of change informing experts’ subjective biases: transformation via technical optimization, via smallholder support, via nature-positive solutions, and via supply chain enabling conditions.DiscussionThese findings provide insights for navigating the complexities of food system transformation and illustrate the influence on our strategies of preconceptions and biases in how we have come to understand the nature of the challenge.

For many decades, food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) were only health-oriented. This changed post-2009 when gradually, an increasing number of countries began to include environmental sustainability considerations in their guidelines. International organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that governments should include environmental sustainability in future FBDGs. However, methodologies on how this should be done are lacking. Therefore, through workshops and discussions with experts, we analysed a selection of methodologies and classified them into six groups: (1) health first; (2) additional advice; (3) demonstrating synergies; (4) modelling impact; (5) combining strategies; (6) systems first. We then assessed how innovative each approach was and their potential for transformative impact. Of the 6 approaches investigated, only approaches 5 and 6 could be considered as disruptive innovations and leading to major changes. Adding environmental sustainability into FBDGs is a policy innovation and has become a debate between old and new multi-criteria guidelines for eating. With the addition of environmental sustainability in FBDGS, a new or emerging set of multi-criteria guidelines for judging food are being proposed that challenges past norms and governance. Today, there is growing scientific consensus that diets that are good for human health are also good for the environment. There is also a growing recognition that food system change is inevitable and desirable. We see this as a positive opportunity to collaborate on FBDGs that are more appropriate for the 21st century and ambitious enough to meet the environmental challenges at hand.

Tropical forest ecosystems are the most species-rich in the world and face intense pressures from land conversion. If done well, selective logging can be an important way of supporting local economies while minimally impacting wildlife. However, most studies on how selective logging affects wildlife come from sites that have been logged some time ago, often a decade or more. Here we assess how logging affects species assemblages in the very short term, immediately after the cessation of timber operations. We estimated overall mammal species richness in unlogged forest, previously logged forest, and an active logging concession in Indonesian Borneo using rarefaction-extrapolation-based diversity estimators. We found that estimated species richness did not differ significantly between unlogged forest (15.5 ± 2.82 species), previously logged forest (14.5 ± 2.10), or recently logged sites (14.2 ± 1.45) sites. Our findings suggest that the short-term impacts of properly managed selective logging are on par with the longer-term impacts that have been assessed in many prior studies.

While Common Pool Resource (CPR) theory has been widely applied to forestry, there are few examples of using the theory to study large-scale governance. In this paper we test the applicability of CPR theory to understanding forest governance and outcomes in Indonesia between 1965 and 2012. Indonesia contains one of the world’s largest tropical forests, and experienced rapid deforestation during this time frame, with forest cover dropping from close to 85% to less than 50%. Using a mixture of within case comparison and process tracing methods, we identify key variables that influenced the levels of deforestation during two time periods: before 1998, when governance was dominated by the dictatorship of President Suharto, and after 1998, when democratic governance and political decentralization were initiated, and deforestation rates fell and then rose again. Our results point to the value of CPR theory in identifying important variables that influence sustainability at large scales, however they also illustrate important limitations of CPR theory for the study of forests with large spatial extent and large numbers of users. The presence and absence of key variables from CPR theory did emerge as important causes of deforestation. However, some variables, such as strong leadership and local rule-making, appeared to work in the opposite direction as predicted by CPR theory. In addition, key variables that may have influenced deforestation rates are not well captured in CPR theory. These include the intention of the governance system, the presence of clientelistic politics, the influences of international politics and markets, and the influence of top-down governance. Given that CPR theory does not fully explain the case at hand, its applicability, as is, to large-scale commons should be treated with some caution.