Bridging the gap between T20 recommendations and meaningful G20-mandated and coordinated policy actions is the central challenge the T20 engagement group has faced since its creation under the 2012 Mexican G20 presidency. Many of us who have been involved with the T20 process feel the need to move beyond a diagnosis followed by a proposal of uncertain feasibility, toward a more pragmatic discussion of concrete G20 actions and its accountability. This approach pivots from the ‘what’ to the ‘how’. It is a path that leads not to abstract solutions but to a demand that the G20’s initiatives are assessed and repurposed in face of old and new challenges and the proposals to address them.

When discussing the governance of food systems transformation, as proposed by Task Force 4 on Solidarity and SDGs, we must remember that the G20 was elevated to the leaders’ level during the 2008–2009 ‘triple F’ crisis – a confluence of financial, fuel and food price emergencies. It was the G20’s response to that food crisis that created the very institutions we must scrutinise as we face a similar spectre of food price volatility today – one of the priorities of the G20 Task Force on Food Security during the South African presidency.

Before examining those tools, it is essential to understand the problems identified and the recommendations put forward by Task Force 4  – the ‘what’ that needs fixing. We pinpointed several critical areas for intervention, starting with the ‘three-fold monotony’ plaguing our food systems. This consists of a dangerous over-reliance on a handful of crops for production; the high concentration of grain for animal feed that fosters genetic monotony and overuse of antibiotics; and the dietary monotony of ultra-processed foods that creates hidden health costs. To counter this, our task force calls for broader, more integrated food system governance that transcends traditional silos and includes a focus on urban agriculture. It requires ensuring stronger regulation of food companies, putting in place market-oriented support for smallholder farmers and tackling excessive market concentration to promote fair competition.

This brings us to the current G20’s implementation toolkit in food systems, starting with its legacy institutions. The Agricultural Market Information System, created for transparency in 2011, could be pushed further; its expanded monitoring of fertilisers and logistics could help inform policies aimed at curbing the very market concentration and financialisation our task force flags. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), created in 2010, with its focus on smallholders and country-led plans, aligns perfectly with our equity goals. Strengthening its producer–organisation-led track would directly answer our call to empower marginalised producers.

Beyond these flagships, the broader G20 toolkit holds immense, often underutilised, potential. The G20’s ‘One Health’ approach directly supports our call to cut antibiotic use in livestock. The G20 endorsement of the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems could be strengthened to demand the kind of multinational accountability seen in the EU’s Supply Chain Act. The G20 Platform on Localising SDGs could become a vital channel for knowledge exchange, facilitating access to funding for food governance and supporting urban food systems from the ground up. Research initiatives like the Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists (MACS) could be mandated to prioritise diverse, climate-resilient crops beyond just millets, directly addressing dietary monotony. And, of course, existing social safety nets align perfectly with our goal of tackling inequitable access to food and could be scaled up, possibly through the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty.

However, truly achieving an equitable transformation as required by Task Force 4 recommendations may require bolder mandates for existing mechanisms.

First, a G20 mandate for a global supply chain accountability framework could be established. Inspired by the EU Act, this would require G20-based multinational food companies to report on human rights and environmental due diligence, creating real accountability for their impact on smallholders and farm workers.

Second, a G20 initiative focused on dietary diversification and healthy consumption could be created. This group could systemically promote healthier diets by analysing and disseminating best practices for taxes and labels on unhealthy foods while using G20 levers such as MACS and GAFSP to invest in research and the production of diverse, nutritious crop supply chains.

Third, a dedicated Urban and Peri-Urban Food Systems Transformation Window could be created within GAFSP. With governance linked to the G20 Platform on Localising SDGs, this fund would provide targeted resources for local government capacity, market infrastructure and urban farming initiatives, especially those led by marginalised groups.

The G20 has put many important pieces on the board. But to bridge the persistent gap between high-level political will and the messy reality of implementation, its members must ensure policies are not just well intentioned but also felt on the ground. Engaging with T20 ideas and connecting them with existing structures can be a pathway to ensure T20 recommendations have a greater impact on G20 actions.