Policy intermediation for agri-food system transition: food policy groups from middle Europe, Australia and United States

Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n‎ = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence. • Food Policy Groups (FPGs) intermediate in the context of social innovations. • Social and technological innovation intermediation show distinct patterns. • Institutional features differ between FPGs across three geographical contexts. • Policy priorities appear unaffected by stronger government relationships.