Skip to content

Data

Below are high-level data outputs from the Global Food Systems Network Map. As Meridian continues to update the Network Map, these insights will reflect the latest findings.

Take me to:
The Topics that Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Work On
 How Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Are Driving Change
 Insights on Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Funding
 Overall System Network Insights

The Data in the Global Food Systems Network Map

The Network Map includes a total of 94 multi-stakeholder initiatives (“Initiatives”), representing efforts across both terrestrial and aquatic food systems.

CAPTION: The percent of Initiatives whose work focuses primarily on aquatic, terrestrial, and both aquatic and terrestrial food systems.Infographic: - A total of 50 Initiatives (53.2% of all Initiatives) focus primarily on terrestrial food efforts, while 38 (40.4% of all Initiatives) focus primarily on aquatic efforts. Six Initiatives (6.3% out of the total) have a clear focus on both terrestrial and aquatic efforts.

The Topics that Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Work On

The Global Food Systems Network Map visualizes the range of food systems Topic areas that Initiatives work on (see chart below). The Network Map can be used to identify Initiatives that focus on the same (or thematically similar) Topic areas. Organizations may find this information useful to identify potential partnerships.

CAPTION: The number of Initiatives associated with each Topic in the Network Map. Initiatives may work on more than one Topic. Note: Initiatives on the Network Map represent just a subset of all global efforts on food systems.All terrestrial, aquatic, and terrestrial and aquatic Initiatives are linked to at least one of 28 Topic areas. The Topic areas are divided up into the five Topic categories:Topic #1: Climate Nexus, which encompasses 5 Topic areas linked to 60 Initiatives; Topic #2: Diets and Nutrition, which encompasses 5 Topic areas linked to 46 Initiatives; Topic #3: Human Labor, which encompasses 6 Topic areas linked to 60 Initiatives; Topic #4: Production Systems, which encompasses 8 Topic areas linked to 95 Initiatives; and Topic #5: Environmental Health, which encompasses 4 Topic areas linked to 38 Initiatives.

Based on our current dataset, Sustainable Agriculture, Adaptation and Mitigation, Food and Nutrition Security, Habitat Health and Biodiversity, and Small-Scale and Smallholder are the Topic areas that Initiatives most commonly work on. All these Topics, except for Sustainable Agriculture, apply to both terrestrial and aquatic food systems.

Alternative Protein Consumption, Forestry, Forest Carbon, Water Resource Management, and Forced Labor are the Topic areas that Initiatives least commonly work on. These findings may indicate gaps in our dataset or the fact that few multi-stakeholder efforts are currently working in these areas. If the latter is true, it is possible that food systems stakeholders see these Topics as less urgent relative to other areas, that funding for these Topics is more limited, or that these Topics are less resourced at the multi-stakeholder initiative level.

 

How Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Are Driving Change

The Global Food Systems Network Map visualizes how Initiatives take action by linking each Initiative to one or more System Drivers. System Drivers are the mechanisms by which Initiatives drive change in food systems (see chart below).

The Network Map can be used to identify Initiatives that leverage the same (or thematically similar) System Drivers in their work. Organizations may find this information useful to identify potential partnerships and to identify potential gaps and opportunities in system interventions.

CAPTION: The number of Initiatives associated with each System Driver in the Network Map. Initiatives may be linked to one or more System Driver. Note: Initiatives on the Network Map represent just a subset of all global efforts on food systems.All terrestrial, aquatic, and terrestrial and aquatic Initiatives are linked to at least one of 15 System Drivers. The System Drivers are divided up into the five System Driver categories:Topic #1: Political, which encompasses 3 System Drivers linked to 86 Initiatives; Topic #2: Resource Use, which encompasses 2 System Drivers linked to 34 Initiatives; Topic #3: Socio-Cultural, which encompasses 3 System Drivers linked to 28 Initiatives; Topic #4: Finance and Economy, which encompasses 4 System Drivers linked to 51 Initiatives; and Topic #5: Information and Technology, which encompasses 3 System Drivers linked to 104 Initiatives.

Based on our current dataset, Policy, Research, and Education and Technical Assistances are the System Drivers most leveraged by Initiatives. The System Drivers least leveraged by Initiatives in the Network Map are Population and Migration, True Cost Accounting, and Infrastructure.

 

Insights on Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Funding

Thirty-three Initiatives (35% of all Initiatives) disclosed information about their annual operating budget (see breakdown below).

CAPTION: The number and percent of Initiatives in the Network Map that disclosed information about their annual operating budget. Note: Initiatives on the Network Map represent just a subset of all global efforts on food systems.Total number of Initiatives included: 94;Initiatives that disclosed operational budget information: 33 (35%); Number of terrestrial Initiatives that disclosed operational budget information: 15 (16%); Number of aquatic Initiatives that disclosed operational budget information: 17 (18%); and Number of terrestrial and aquatic Initiatives that disclosed operational budget information: 1 (1%)

Based on our current dataset, Initiative operating budgets most commonly fell in the $100,000 to $500,000 (USD) and $1 million to $5 million (USD) brackets, each representing the budget levels for nine Initiatives.

CAPTION: Distribution of Initiative operating budgets by funding ranges and Initiative type, based on 33 datapoints. Note: Initiatives on the Network Map represent just a subset of all global efforts on food systems.The annual operating budgets of the 33 Initiatives that disclosed such information breaks down as follows:0 to 100,000 U.S. Dollars: 2 Initiatives total (1 Aquatic Initiative, 1 Terrestrial Initiative) 100,000 to 500,000 U.S. Dollars: 10 Initiatives total (5 Aquatic Initiatives, 5 Terrestrial Initiatives); 500,000 to 1 million U.S. Dollars: 6 Initiatives total (4 Aquatic Initiatives, 2 Terrestrial Initiatives); 1 million to 5 million U.S. Dollars: 9 Initiatives total (4 Aquatic Initiatives, 4 Terrestrial Initiatives, 1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Initiative); 5 million to 10 million U.S. Dollars: 3 Initiatives total (1 Aquatic Initiative, 2 Terrestrial Initiatives); and 10 million to 25 million U.S. Dollars: 3 Initiatives total (2 Aquatic Initiatives, 1 Terrestrial Initiative)

No determinations can be made at this time regarding differences in funding between terrestrial and aquatic Initiatives. As additional Initiatives provide operational budget information, Meridian will be able to more distinctly identify system trends.

 

Overall System Network Insights

Based on the analysis of our current dataset, the Global Food Systems network operates as a healthy and highly distributive network, where information is broadly shared, and no institution is operating as a “power hoarder.” As Meridian continues to update the Network Map, these findings may change.

Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives that Act as “Network Bridges”

The Global Food Systems Network operates as a broadly distributed system. Still, two key Initiatives stood out as potential “bridges”: Field to Market and the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. Both Initiatives scored moderately high when running a Kumu analysis on Initiatives based on their “centrality” and “betweenness” among multiple Initiatives.

Institutions that Act as “Information Spreaders”

We ran a “reach analysis” in Kumu, which identifies Institutions that have a high likelihood of spreading information through the network via “friend-of-a-friend” contacts. Based on this analysis, high potential “information spreaders” include The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, and Conservation International.

Assessing “Top Network Leaders”

Kumu allows for analyzing how well-connected Institutions and Initiatives are to other network elements, and thus identify those that could act as leaders or “central hubs” within the network. Based on our analysis, no Institution or Initiative emerged as a “core leader of the network.” This also indicates that there are no “power hoarders” in the network.

Data Assumptions and Caveats

Meridian looks to update the Global Food Systems Network Map quarterly and identify key insights to support actions in the food system. These insights will be updated as we collect additional data and information.

It is important to note that Meridian’s Global Food Systems Network Map is not a traditional social network map, but rather a systems network map. Thus, it tracks connections among and between organizations based on activities they carry out and outcomes they focus on. This limits options for relationship-based social network analysis but opens up systemic insights on gap discovery and possible collaborations outside of known social circles. Generating analytics can provide insight into degrees of connectivity across the network, potential centers of influence, and the ways information may flow through the network.

Do you know of a multi-stakeholder initiative that you believe should be included in the Network Map? Please contact us — we’d love to hear from you!

Get in Touch