THE MILAN URBAN FOOD POLICY PACT

MONITORING FRAMEWORK
 

Cover photo:
© Guido Santini
Content

Food in an urbanizing world 2

Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Monitoring Framework  3

A tool to help achieve the 2030 Agenda 10

How to use the Monitoring Framework 12

Application of Monitoring Framework: insight from pilot cities 13

Indicators matrix 18

References28
 2 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Food in an urbanizing world

Today, approximately 55 percent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion
that is expected to increase to 68 percent by 20501. Most urban growth will be in Africa and
Southeast Asia and with 70 percent all food produced already destined for consumption in
cities2 processes of urbanization are creating both challenges and opportunities to create
healthy, fair, economically and environmentally sustainable food systems.

Poverty and food insecurity are being “urbanized” 3. Urban food insecurity is strongly
associated to inequitable distribution of resources 4.

In addition, the number of overweight and obese people is growing everywhere but
especially in urban areas5 (in 2017, over 38 million children under five were overweight,
and 672 million adults were obese6). One of the underlying causes of this rise - in addition
to a reduction in physical activity - has been a shift in dietary patterns towards a diet rich in
highly processed foods (high in salt, sugar and fat) to the detriment of a nutritional regime
including whole grains, root crops, legumes and fresh fruits and vegetables7,5. Poor dietary
patterns are among the leading risk factors for the global burden of disease8 and related
rising health expenditure9.

Climate change is similarly a challenge; food systems emit 30 percent of planet Earth’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) of which food (including food loss and waste) is among the top five
largest contributors.10 As urban food markets represent 70 percent of global food supply,
cities are critical hotspots for experiencing the shocks and stresses of climate change11.

On the positive side, the fastest growing urban centers, especially in Africa and Asia, will
be small- and medium-size cities where 34 percent of the world’s population already lives1
creating significant opportunities for sustainable food systems policy and planning, plus
employment for improved nutrition within the rural-urban spectrum12. Indeed, 60 percent
of the area expected to be urban by 2030 is yet to be built and this creates opportunities to
build resilience and sustainable urban food systems11.

The key role that cities and local actors play in addressing these interlinked food systems
challenges has been recognized by national players and the international communityi,ii.

i The New Urban Agenda was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development
(Habitat III) in Quito, Ecuador, on 20 October 2016. It was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly at its sixty-eighth
plenary meeting of the seventy-first session on 23 December 2016. The New Urban Agenda places food security and nutrition
at the center of urban sustainable development http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf

ii On 7 March 2019, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) launched The FAO Framework for the Urban Food
Agenda. It serves as a corporate strategy to address emerging calls from countries, responding to demands for a multi-stake-
holder and multi-level approach to food insecurity and malnutrition across the rural-urban continuum.
http://www.fao.org/3/ca3151en/CA3151EN.pdf
 3 
Vertical collaborations (where organizations share their responsibilities, resources, and
performance information to serve similar ends) among national and local governments, in
partnership with the private sector as well as civil society, is of paramount importance to
effectively respond to people’s demands for nutritious and accessible food, climate action
and social equity in line with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda.

Milan Urban Food Policy Pact

Monitoring Framework
In October 2015, during EXPO 2015, held in Milan and dedicated to the theme “Feeding
the Planet, Energy for Life”, over one hundred cities from every continent signed the
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP), a non-binding agreement on urban food policies
“designed by cities for cities” http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org.

City mayors committed to develop sustainable and resilient food systems, to accord
nutritious and accessible food to all, protect biodiversity and fight against food waste. The
attention demonstrated by municipalities to this initiative revealed the need to deepen the
attention given to pressing issues on a cooperative basis and underlined the urgency of
defining models for an integrated approach to urban food systems.

In 2019, the MUFPP united 199 cities, illustrating how an ever-increasing number of cities
are working to bring together civil society organizations (CSOs), the private sector and
policy makers to deliver broader developmental objectives through food systems.

The Pact consists of an explanatory narrative that illustrates the role of cities in contributing
towards the transformation of urban food systems towards sustainability and a Framework
of Action articulated in a set of 37 recommended actions organized around six categories:

Governance

Sustainable diets and nutrition

Social and economic equity

Food production (including urban-rural linkages)

Food supply and distribution

Food waste
 4 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Despite the growing number of urban food initiatives in many cities, a key challenge expressed
by MUFPP signatory cities is measuring the impact of these policy processes and initiatives.

Since 2016, FAOiii and the MUFPP Secretariat, with the support of the RUAFiv, have
collaborated to develop an innovative and comprehensive set of indicators and
methodological guidelines to monitor the MUFPP recommended actions in line with cities’
demands, capabilities and administrative obligations.

Through a consultative process that involved more than 40 cities, a first draft list of
Indicators was presented in October 2017 in Valencia at the 3rd MUFPP Annual Gathering.

A group of 16 cities actively participated, through a series of webinars, in the finalization of

the Milan Pact Monitoring Framework v. This draft list of Indicators was selected based on:

Ħ At least one indicator for each recommended action/outcome of the MUFPP

Ħ Relevance and data availability

Ħ High relevance but no data availability

Ħ Methodological considerations (feasibility).

The final list of Indicators – along with methodological guidelines - was presented at
the MUFFP Annual Gathering in Tel Aviv in 2018. The Monitoring Framework provides
an overview of indicators that, taken together, can be part of a sustainable food system
approach - a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that
the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for
future generations are not compromised13.

iii The FAO inter-divisional team who contributed to the Monitoring Framework was composted by: Anne Kepple, Michela
Carucci, Guido Santini, Thierry Giordano, Erdgin Mane, Mark McGuire, Jorge Fonseca, Vito Cistulli and Cristian Morales Opazo.
The team was coordinated by José Rosero Moncayo, Director of the Statistics Division at FAO
http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/FAO-Team-working-on-indicators.pdf

iv The RUAF is a Global Partnership on Sustainable Urban Agriculture and Food Systems. The Partnership is formed by
strategically selected expert institutions with a significant track record in urban farming or work on urban food system
solutions, and consists of cities, research institutes and NGOs https://www.ruaf.org/about-ruaf. The RUAF team who
contributed to the Monitoring Framework was composed by Marielle Dubbelling, Joy Carey and Brian Cook.

v Antananarivo, Austin, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Curitiba, Ede, Milan, Nairobi, Quito, São Paulo, Tirana, Toronto, Vancouver,
Washington, West Sacramento, Windhoek
 5 

© FAO/Giuseppe Bizzarri
 6 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Nature and scope of Monitoring Framework

The purpose of the Monitoring Framework is to serve as an instrument for cities and
urban food stakeholders to identify food-related policy and programme priorities. The
Framework also serves to illustrate to what extent “desired changes” are happening and/
or how impactful such changes are. If measured periodically, the Framework can be used
to evaluate gaps in policy advancement and resource mobilization as well as reveal overall
urban food systems improvement.

Ħ The Framework has been designed to support cities and sub-national officers
responsible for designing food systems policies, projects and investments in
selecting appropriate indicators to monitor actions and their impact (positive or
negative), on various food-related developmental objectives.

Ħ The Framework does not represent official FAO recommendations for specific
indicators or methodologies. It does not provide detailed guidance on how to collect
a given indicator, but the methodological guidelines for each indicator suggest
“approaches” and point to relevant guidance materials. The Framework is intended
only to provide information on the indicators, methodologies, application and
constructs that may be relevant to consider in the monitoring and evaluation of
urban food systems policies, programs and investments.

Ħ It is not envisaged that a single city and/or public or private partner should collect
data on all the indicators presented in the Framework. The type of policy and
developmental priorities will inform the selection, as well as the feasibility of data
collection in view of available resources and other constraints.

Ħ The Framework has not been designed to compare cities and establish global
ranking systems. However, it can be a useful tool for cities and urban practitioners
to identify a common narrative against which experiences and progress can be
compared and which highlights the increasing role of cities in making food systems
more sustainable.

Ħ Cities and food actors can use the Framework to start more collaborative and
synergistic approaches between municipal departments, wider stakeholder groups
and the national government to address food system challenges systemically.

Target audience

The target audience for the Framework is primarily municipal governments, development
professionals and food practitioners working on urban food-related projects and
programmes. Although the indicators have been drafted as a tool to monitor the progress of
MUFPP recommended actions, they serve as a tool for all cities, development professionals,
private organizations, research institutions and CSOs working on urban food systems and
rural-urban linkages.
 7 
Structure of the Framework
The Monitoring Framework is organized along the six categories of the Milan Pact and
includes:

Ħ A set of Outcome areas or “desired direction of travel”

Ħ A set of Recommend actions to achieve intended outcomes (linked to Outcome Areas)

Ħ Indicators to be used to monitor improvement in the achievements of cities’

expected outcomes.

Methodological Guidelines for each indicators can be downloaded from the Indicators
matrix (p. 18ff.), or for all 44 indicators grouped at
http://www.fao.org/3/CB4036EN/CB4036EN.pdf
At least one indicator for each of the 37 recommended actions has been identified, for a
total of 44 indicators formulated or adapted from existing indicator frameworks vi . (see
Figure 1, p. 9) (the full list of 44 indicators can be found on pages 19).

Outcome areas
Outcome areas (or “desired direction of travel”) are the changes that cities want to see in
the future: i.e. changes that characterize a more resilient and sustainable food system.

Outcomes correspond to benefits that cities should be able to achieve by applying specific
policies and programmes in partnership with a broader range of stakeholders (from
universities and public agencies to the private sector and CSOs). However, as there are
many factors that contribute to the achievement of policy outcomes, each single action
cannot be linked to the achievement of long-term outcomes. Moreover, the results of
policy-making process and multi-stakeholder collaborations are often only visible in the
medium- to long-term.

Taken together, the Outcome areas contribute towards four broader impact areas and
development objectives (see Figure 2, p. 9):

Ħ (Improved) Citizen engagement and accountability in policy making

Ħ (Improved) Health, Nutrition and Food Security

Ħ (Reduced) Poverty and (Improved) Economic Growth and Equity

Ħ (Reduced) Environmental Impact and Footprint

vi The City Region Food Systems (CRFS) Indicator Framework served as a key resource tool for the development of the MUFPP
Monitoring Framework
http://www.fao.org/in-action/food-for-cities-programme/toolkit/crfs-assessment/indicator-framework/en
 8 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Recommended actions
Recommended Actions serve as an example of options that cities and food actors possess
in order to meet the desired outcomes. These Actions build upon the direct experience of
cities and consider relevant commitments and goals by the Milan Pact. While the options
have been organized into thematic clusters, they should be viewed as “entry points”
towards achieving the common goal of sustainable food systems.

Most initiatives (such as school meals or community gardens) may fall under the jurisdiction
of more than one municipal agency or department but will have an impact on a range of
Sustainable Development Goals.

Indicators
Indicators provide information about the way a process is functioning and provide a basis
for further improvements. The purpose of the Indicators is to help measure the extent
to which “desired changes” are happening. The Indicators also act as pointers to changes
needed in strategies or intervention directions especially when monitored or tracked over
a period. Indicators can also be used to establish a baseline from which to measure on-
going progress or change.

Indicators are measurable variables that capture some non-measurable concepts. They
are used to measure outcomes and/or outputs that are linked to achieving a goal.

The Indicators are either directly linked to specific outputs that may be the result of specific
interventions and/or projects that are linked to medium- to long-term outcomes that are
invariably the result of different connected actions.

For example, when assessing improvement in the social and economic equity policy
dimension, some Indicators focus around short-term outputs indicators such as #19
Percentage of people supported by food and/or social assistance programmes; #20
Percentage of children and youth (under 18 years) benefitting from school feeding
programmes or #24 Number of opportunities for food-related learning and skill
development in food and nutrition literacy, employment training and leadership. An
indicator such as #18 Percentage of food insecure households based on the Food Insecurity
Experience Scale (FIES) is meant to be used to monitor medium- to long-term changes that
are often the results of interlinked policies and action.

The 44 indicators can be organized into two main groups:

Ħ Self-assessment binary indicators that look at the presence (or absence) of a specific
item and/or policy. Some examples are #2 Presence of an active multi-stakeholder
food policy and planning structure; #6 Existence of a food supply emergency/food
resilience management plan for the municipality based on vulnerability assessment;
#16 Presence of programmes/policies that promote the availability of nutritious
and diversified foods in public facilities; #39 Presence of food safety legislation and
implementation and enforcement procedures. This typology of indicators is often
complemented by a set of qualifiers that help understand progress over time.
 9 
Ħ Quantitative Indicators useful for measuring percentages, absolute numbers and/
or rates that address progress against specific baselines. Some examples are #9
Cost of a nutritious food basket at city/community level; #10 Individual average daily
consumption of meat; #18 Percentage of food insecure households based on the
Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES); #29 Proportion of agricultural land in the
municipal area under sustainable agriculture; #38 Proportion of food procurement
expenditure by public institutions on food from sustainable, ethical sources and
shorter supply chains; #44 Total annual volume of surplus food recovered and
redistributed for human consumption.

The implementation of indicators will require different levels of disaggregation (classification/

analysis) according to specific needs (see methodological guidelines).

NB: Terms such as “food desert”, which is common idiom in North America, may need to be
adapted to local contexts - cities in Africa or Asia, for example

FIGURE 1 Relationship between the 44 indicators and the 6 work streams of the Milan Pact

6 Categories
MILAN URBAN
FOOD POLICY PACT 37 Recommended actions
11
Adapted from BCFN, 44 Indicators
2019 Food and Cities 9
7 7 7 7 7
6 6 6

4 4

FIGURE 2 Simplified relationship between the 4 impact areas and the 44 indicators
44
43
42 1
13 2
41 3
35 4
34 (Reduced) (Improved) 5
33 Environmental Citizen engagement
Impact and and accountability
29 Footprint in policy making

10
6
39 19
18 (Improved) (Reduced) 21
17 Health, Nutrition Poverty 22
16 and Food Security (Improved) 23
Economic Growth 24
15
25
14 and Equity
26
13 27
12 28
11 30
9 31
8
7 37 32
20 40 38

36
 10 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

A tool to help achieve the 2030 Agenda

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). (Figure 3)

Municipalities - with their close connections to residents, local businesses and civil society
organizations - are key to the implementation of most SDGs, and not only SDG 11: Make
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Considering that most underlying policies and investments necessary to achieve the SDGs
are a shared responsibility across all levels of all governments, the 2030 Agenda needs a
proper engagement and coordination with local and regional governments. The role of
cities in promoting urban food policies is crucial not only to make food systems sustainable
but to successfully meet the SDGs.

The MUFPP Monitoring Framework has been conceived to serve as a key tool to complement
the implementation of the SDGs at local level. In practical terms, the Framework can serve
as an instrument to experiment with innovative solutions and collaborations among cities
and national governments on data gathering, management and dissemination, which can
be scaled up in all territories. It can also contribute to help design inclusive and resilient
national food policies that make our cities and connected rural-areas places of “good and
equitable living.”

FIGURE 3 Sustainable Development Goals

The MUFPP framework is organized in 6 categories (Governance, Sustainable Diets and

Nutrition, Social and Economic Equity, Food Porduction, Food Supply and Distribution,
Food Waste) that recommend 37 actions, here below connected with SDGs targets.
 11 

TABLE 1 Relationship among the 6 work streams of the Milan Pact, the 44 indicators and SDG targets

MUFPP Category INDICATOR SDG TARGETS

1
2 16.6 - 17.7
3
Governance 4 16.10
5 16.10
6
7 2.1
8 2.2
9 1.4
10 2.c
11 12.8 - 2.4
Sustainable Diets & Nutrition 12 2.2 - 3.4
13 2.2 - 3.4
14 2.2 - 3.4
15 2.2
16 2.2
17 2.2
18 6.1
19 2.2
20 2.2
Social and Economic Equity 21 2.3 - 8.3
22 2.1
23 1.3 - 1.b - 2.1 - 2.2 - 12.3
24 4.7
25 11.a
26 11.a
27 11.a - 15.5 - 15.9
28 2.3 - 15.5 - 15.9
Food Production 29 11.a - 2.4 - 15.5 - 15.9
30 2.4
31 11.a
32 11.a
33 12.5
34 13.2
35 11.b
36 2.2
Food Supply & Distribution 37 2.2
38 12.7
39
40
41 4.7 - 12.3
42 4.7 - 12.3
Food Waste 43 12.3
44 12.3

Adapted from BCFN, 2019 Food & Cities.

 12 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

How to use the Monitoring Framework

The Monitoring Framework sets-out the six MUFPP workstreams (first column).

For each workstream category, the Framework then sets-out the related Outcome Areas
(desired change); Recommended Actions (to achieve Outcomes) and, finally, the Indicators
that relate to both the Outcome Areas and Recommended Actions.

Cities using the Framework must consider the following questions:

Ħ What are my local food systems priorities in relation to each of the six MUFPP categories?
Ħ What do I want to achieve in the next 2-5 years?
Ħ What actions do I need to take to achieve those outcomes?
Ħ Which indicators are most useful for setting a base line and monitoring ongoing
progress in relation to the selected priority work areas?

An handbook, providing practical guidance for any cities wishing to adopt and implement
a monitoring framework tailored to their own context is available at
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CB4181en/

Indicator guidelines

To facilitate the use of Indicators, a set of Methodological Guidelines has been developed
for each indicator.

Each guideline contains information on:

Ħ the rationale for selecting this indicator

Ħ how the indicator is constructed
Ħ a glossary to clarify technical terms
Ħ explanations on the types of data required
Ħ how data can be collected
Ħ the expertise and resources needed
Ħ examples of how some cities have already collected and analyzed data and used this
indicator.

Each guideline also highlights the connections with the SDGs and related targets.
Cities can select, adapt and group options into guidelines as necessary to suit their situations.
Links to related information material and samples of best practices are available as a
complementary set of guidance materials.
These guidelines can be downloaded, for each indicator, from the Indicators matrix (p. 18 ff.),
or for all 44 indicators grouped at http://www.fao.org/3/CB4036EN/CB4036EN.pdf
 13 

Application of Monitoring Framework:

insight from pilot cities
Through much of 2019 the cities of Antananarivo (Madagascar); Quito (Ecuador) and Nairobi
(Kenya) have been participating in a pilot project to start working with the Monitoring
Framework locally and to share their learning with other cities.

Each city selected several indicators that relate to key strategic priorities. Each city explored
ways to identify relevant data, methods of collection and analysis to make best use of data
findings. The pilot project is a ‘springboard’ for developing further work priorities. The Insights
that follow here are related to the process of working with the Monitoring Framework rather
than recommendations relating to specific indicators (this will follow – in late 2019).

© Municipality of Valencia - MUFPP

 14 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Nairobi, Kenya
“The MUFPP Monitoring Framework pilot project in Nairobi has been a catalyst
for bringing together different sectors within Nairobi City County (NCC) along
with other key organizations. This has occurred at two key levels; firstly, the
Cross-Sectoral Consultative Group (CCG) within NCC - which brings together
Education, Health, Environment, Water, Planning and Trade, to engage with
the Food and Agriculture Sector on the indicators and food generally - fin-
ding linkages between the indicators framework and the draft Nairobi Food
System Strategy” explains Dr Karugu, Acting Head of Nairobi’s Food Systems
Directorate.

The pilot project has also been a catalyst for the work of a smaller MUFPP In-
dicators Working Group to manage data collection and analysis that includes
NCC staff, C40 (the network of megacities committed to addressing climate
change), FAO and the Mazingira Institute.

The need for data to inform the framework indicators revealed bottlenecks
and obstacles in the way data is collected, shared and stored across NCC. The
inter-sectoral collaboration helped to inspire solutions to improve data col-
lection and analysis.

The indicators also helped stakeholders identify the connectivity with the food
system like, for example, how market outlet indicator #36 potentially relates
to health indicators #11 and #12.

“Previous work on food system assessment did not have a monitoring per-
spective but the MUFPP indicators now provide a basis for research/know-
ledge generation to contribute to measuring progress towards achieving su-
stainable food systems” says Rebeccah Wanjiru, from the FAO Office, Nairobi.

“The MUFPP Indicators Framework helps frame C40’s future work on the food
system and climate change resilience including work on linkages between wa-
ste and food – stopping waste from reaching the dump” states Stephen Otie-
no, Nairobi Food Advisor, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

The indicator results allow stakeholders gain insights about priority food sy-
stem actions and interventions which makes work purposeful and meaningful”
says Winfred Katumo, Project Lead, Nairobi City County. “It’s an eye-opener,
creates synergy and enables us to bring together a range of different perspecti-
ves to solve problems with new solutions” adds Katumo. “It has brought exci-
tement among members of the Secretariat because it’s self-assessment - so-
mething new and interesting” adds Diana Lee-Smith of the Mazingira Institute.
 15 

Quito, Ecuador

“Quito’s participation in the MUFPP pilot indicator implementation project

has allowed the city to raise awareness of and increase the commitment to
change and thus empower municipal bodies” writes Alexandra Rodríguez
Dueñas, Project Lead, AGRUPAR Participatory Urban Agriculture Project Ma-
nager Conquito. “The framework has helped promote the idea that everyo-
ne can be agents for change, proposing innovative themes for municipal
planning to local policy makers (government, sustainable diet, reduction of
food loss and waste), generating evidence of how things are, while at the
same time establishing new collaborations such as the data collection pro-
cess which required us to seek out other food system actors, especially tho-
se pursuing similar goals of sustainability and resilience. Participation in the
pilot has also strengthened the multisectoral process that the Quito Pacto
Agroalimentario (PAQ)vii has promoted since 2017.”

“Generation of knowledge has promoted significant change in practices. The

process has given Quito the opportunity to reflect carefully on the experien-
ces of those least served by the current food system in the city. For example,
greater familiarity with residents’ daily struggles for survival as well as their
knowledge, priorities and beliefs around creating a healthier and more su-
stainable world. We have also reflected in greater depth on the approaches
to developing transformation processes and what this means for the design
of our own data collection, analysis and interventions.”

“The process has clarified many specific gaps in Quito’s food system moni-
toring such as the lack of ways of systematizing experiences, the absence of
reliable data and lack of measurement of actions. We have encountered a
lack of interest among some city officials and the absence of public policy re-
lated to many important food system issues. In Quito this process has been
important, and we are trying to focus on and value the diversity of knowle-
dge and experiences that coexist in each social process and in each of the
interventions that are analyzed” concludes Ms Rodríguez Dueñas.”

vii http://gobiernoabierto.quito.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/documentos/sistemaagro/index.html
 16 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Antananarivo, Madagascar

The Commune Urbaine d’Antananarivo (CUA), the city’s governing body, be-
gan defining its strategic vision - identifying priorities and contributing to a
food policy action plan in 2017. A team was established within the 1st De-
puty Mayor’s office, to facilitate the coordination of the different CUA depart-
ments involved in food policy actions (social development, education and
nutrition, urban planning and finance).

The lead officer worked closely with key stakeholders (public and private
actors, CSOs, NGOs, research and academic institutions) to develop joint
strategies and coordinate the data collection process to identify food policy
impacts. This action led to the decision to implement the MUFPP Monitoring
Framework to organize existing food system data within the CUA’s internal
database and the data being generated by CUA partners.

The MUFPP pilot process is helping to determine the level of priority that
food has within the municipality’s agenda.

As an outcome of the project, CUA received an enthusiastic response from

all stakeholders, willing to participate in the further consolidation of a mul-
ti-sectorial approach through the creation of the first Antananarivo Food Po-
licy Committee.

The data collection process has significantly contributed to a participatory

decision-making process, through sharing of data, and the evaluation of pri-
orities to be included in future action plans led by external actors and by the
CUA initiatives.

Stakeholders have understood that the municipality is eager to support

them and facilitate the development of a common action plan oriented to
improve the city’s food chain. The collected data will be shaped into a single
document, which will relate to the six MUFPP working areas - and for each
working area a set of indicators adapted to the local context will be determi-
ned for future monitoring. In addition, a set of Guidelines and recommended
actions will be proposed to accompany the Food Policy Committee’s vision.

“This whole process has been possible thanks to FAO-RUAF technical sup-
port, which has provided us with concrete tools on how to measure existing
actions and results, an exercise which has shown to be cost-effective and
sustainable for the future of the policy implementation” states Tokiana Ra-
kotonirainy, Food Policy Officer, Cabinet of the Mayor, Urban Commune of
Antananarivo.
 17 
The city of Milan itself has begun work on the Monitoring Framework to include new metrics in
the monitoring and evaluation system of the city. Italy’s most populous metropolis is presently
conducting pilot baseline assessment in collaboration with public-private stakeholders on
food waste and public procurement in line with the proposed MUFFP indicators.

As per the Milan Food Policy priorities, voted in 2015 by the City Councilviii, the Municipality of
Milan has clear goals for the city food systemix- and these are:

Ħ Guaranteeing healthy food for everybody

Ħ Promoting the sustainability of the food system

Ħ Providing food culture and nutrition education

Ħ Fighting waste

Ħ Supporting and promoting scientific research in the agri-food sector

The MUFPP Monitoring Framework is therefore becoming the preferred tool to track Food
Policy actions and advancements, as well as the instrument to contribute to achieving the
SDGs in the city.

In 2019, Milan was in the process of evaluating the Indicators before implementation and the
work consists of selecting relevant Indicators for specific contexts, mapping the availability of
data and developing a management system to update information. While having a systemic
Food Policy has been an undoubted advantage (and guided the process thoroughly), the
Municipality is attempting to minimize the number of Indicators, in order to implement the
most significant ones.

viii http://www.foodpolicymilano.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/DGC-25-2015.pdf

ix http://www.foodpolicymilano.org/
 18 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

Indicators matrix
MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION x
WORK STREAM

Governance 1. Facilitate collaboration across

Participatory food governance
(enabling structures exist and are cross-
city agencies and departments
and seek alignment of policies
effective jurisdictional, cross-sectorial and programmes that impact
action) and multi-stakeholder. the food system across multiple
sectors and administrative levels.

Participatory food
governance structures 2. Enhance stakeholder
participation at the city level
enhance transparency,
through political dialogue,
ownership, collaboration as well as through education
and co-investment among and awareness raising.
multiple stakeholders.

Urban food system policies,

legislation, and strategies 4. Develop or revise urban food
policies and plans and ensure
exist and are integrated allocation of appropriate resources
into other policies, planning within the city administration.
processes and programmes.

Knowledge sharing
3. Identify, map and evaluate
mechanisms are developed local initiatives and civil society
and used for food food movements in order to
policy development and transform best practices into
accountability by enhancing relevant programmes and policies.
the availability, quality,
quantity, coverage and
management and exchange
of data related to urban 5. Develop or improve
food systems (including multisectoral information
both formal data collection systems for policy development
and data generated by civil and accountability.
society and other partners).

The food system is being

6. Develop a disaster risk
included in city disaster
reduction strategy to enhance the
and resilience assessments resilience of urban food systems.
and response plans.

X. The numbering of the recommended actions respects the MUFPP declaration.

 19 

INDICATOR xi

1. Presence of an active municipal interdepartmental government body for advisory and

decision-making of food policies and programmes (e.g. interdepartmental food working group,
food policy office, food team).
This allows for (self)assessment of the presence, multi-stakeholder representation and integration, functioning
and effectiveness of an interdepartmental/sectoral food coordination body or mechanism. Furthermore, it helps
identify areas for improvement.

2. Presence of an active multi-stakeholder food policy and planning structure (e.g. food policy councils,
food partnerships, food coalitions…).
This enables (self)assessment of the presence, multi-stakeholder representation and functioning and effectiveness
of a multi-stakeholder body or mechanism for urban food policy and planning. Furthermore, it helps identify
areas for improvement.

3. Presence of a municipal urban food policy or strategy and/or action plans.

This enables (self)assessment of the presence and level of implementation of a municipal urban food strategy/
policy and/or action plan. If desired, critical assessment of the actual strategy/policy and/or action plan itself may be
implemented. Both exercises help define areas for improvement.

4. Presence of an inventory of local food initiatives and practices to guide development and expansion
of municipal urban food policy and programmes.
This enables (self)assessment of the presence and use of an inventory of local food initiatives and practices to guide
development and expansion of municipal urban food policy and programmes. It may spur new development or
“actualization” of such inventory and define recommendations for better use.

5. Presence of a monitoring/evaluation mechanism for assembling and analyzing urban food

system data to inform municipal policy making on urban food policies.
Allows for (self)assessment of the presence and use of a monitoring/evaluation mechanism for assembling and analyzing
urban food system data. Actual monitoring/evaluation will enable reflection on the experiences gained with urban food
policies, impacts achieved and will inform and improve further municipal food policy making and reporting.

6. Existence of a food supply emergency/ food resilience management plan for the municipality
(in response to disasters; vulnerabilities in food production, transport, access; socio economic
shocks etc.) based on vulnerability assessment.
Allows for (self)assessment of the presence and level of implementation of a food supply emergency/ food
resilience management plan. If desired, critical assessment of the actual plan may be implemented. Both
exercises help define areas for improvement.

xi. Based on city feedback, revisions from FAO and RUAF in 2019 and 2021, and development of the methodological guidelines
 20 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION
WORK STREAM

Sustainable
diets and
Urban residents have
nutrition access to affordable,
sufficient, nutritious, safe,
7. Promote sustainable
adequate, and diversified
and healthy diets.
food that contribute
to healthy diets and
meet dietary needs.

Decrease in prevalence
8. Address non-
of non-communicable
communicable diseases
diseases and improved diet-
associated with poor
related health outcomes diets and obesity.
in specific communities.

9. Develop sustainable
dietary guidelines.

Food, health and 11. Explore regulatory and

educational policies address voluntary instruments to
and improve sustainable promote sustainable diets.
diets and nutrition and 12. Encourage joint action
coordinates action between by health and food sectors.
health, environment
and food sectors. 10a. Adapt standards
and regulations to
make sustainable diets
accessible in public and
private sector facilities.

10b. Adapt standards and

regulations to make
safe drinking water
All residents have accessible in public and
access to safe drinking private sector facilities.
water and sanitation.
13. Invest in and commit to
achieving universal access
to safe drinking water
 21 

INDICATOR

7. Minimum dietary diversity for women of reproductive age.

Assess dietary quality at individual level, specifically looking at women of reproductive age. It is a
proxy for the probability of micronutrient adequacy of women’s diets.

8. Number of households living in “food deserts.”

Measures the geospatial distribution of the food retail establishments and of socioeconomic population
groups to analyze number (or percentage) of households living at a certain distance from food markets.

9. Costs of a nutritious food basket at city/community level.

Measures the medium cost of a diet meeting the minimum requirements of macro- and
micronutrients or food based dietary guidelines e.g. a weighted food price index.

10. Individual average daily consumption of meat.

NB: This is not a normative indicator on recommended daily intake of meat; it measures meat
consumption in order to address sustainable and healthy diets from an environmental perspective.
11. Numbers of adults with Type 2 diabetes.
Measures number (percentage) of adults with Type 2 diabetes.
12. Prevalence of stunting for children under five years of age.
Measures prevalence of stunting (poor linear growth) among children under five.

13. Prevalence of overweight or obesity among adults, youth and children

Measures prevalence of overweight or obesity among adults, youth and children (it involves body
weight and height measurements for different age and gender groups to determine the percentage of
populations that are overweight or obese).

14. Number of city-led or supported activities to promote sustainable diets

Measures the number of city-led or supported activities to promote sustainable diets (data may be
disaggregated by type of activity and target audience).

15. Existence of policies/programmes that address sugar, salt and fat consumption in
relation to specific target groups (e.g. general public, in hospitals and schools).
Measures the existence of laws/regulations/ policies/ programmes that address sugar, salt and fat
consumption in relation to specific target groups (general public, in hospitals and schools).

16. Presence of programmes/policies that promote the availability of nutritious and

diversified foods in public facilities.
Monitors presence of programmes/policies that promote the availability of nutritious and diversified
foods in public facilities.

17. Percentage of population with access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.
Measures the percentage of population with access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation.
By disaggregating the data spatially and by different socioeconomic strata, it is possible to identify
which parts of the population are being left behind.
 22 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION
WORK STREAM

Social and
economic 14. Use cash and food
equity transfers, and other forms of
social protection systems to
provide vulnerable populations
Increase in level of food with access to healthy food.
security for specific
vulnerable groups.

15. Re-orientate school

feeding programmes and
other institutional food
services to provide healthy
and local/regional food.

16. Promote decent

Fair and decent (formal employment for all, within the
and informal) jobs and food and agriculture sector, with
income opportunities exist the full inclusion of women.
for small-scale producers,
17. Encourage and support
workers (including social and solidarity economy
youth and women) and activities, that support
businesses throughout sustainable livelihoods in the
the food system. food chain and facilitate access
to safe and healthy foods.

18. Promote networks

and support grassroots
Food policies address and
activities that create social
improve social inclusion. inclusion and provide food to
marginalized individuals.

Local communities are

19. Promote participatory
equipped with knowledge,
education, training and
skills and expertise
research in strengthening
to develop local food local food system action.
system activities.
 23 

INDICATOR

18. Percentage of food insecure households based on the Food Insecurity Experience
Scale (FIES).
Measures severity of food insecurity experience based on the FIES (an indicator of food access, not
diet quality).

19. Percentage of people supported by food and/or social assistance programmes.

Measures the take-up (or usage) of food and/or social assistance support through programmes that
target vulnerable groups that are struggling to feed themselves. Over time, this indicator should show
how take-up is increasing or decreasing.

20. Percentage of children and youth (under 18 years of age) benefitting from school
feeding programmes.
Measures the proportion of children and youth (everyone under 18 years old) attending school who
benefit from a school feeding programme.

21. Number of formal jobs related to the urban food system that pay at least the
national minimum or living wage.
Measures the total number of formal paid jobs that the urban food system provides at (and above)
the level of a nationally accepted minimum or living wage.
NB: If it is NOT possible to quantify jobs paid at least the national minimum or living wage, the focus
should be to quantify the total number of formal paid jobs in the food system.

22. Number of community-based food assets in the city.

Measures the number of community-based food assets in the city, such as community kitchens,
community gardens, community shops, cafes, food hubs…

23. Presence of food-related policies and targets with a specific focus on socially
vulnerably groups
Allows for (self)assessment of the presence, and the level of implementation of food-related municipal
policies and targets, that either directly target vulnerable groups or do so indirectly by supporting
and enabling the grass-root activities of community-based networks to increase social inclusion and
provide food to marginalized individuals.

24. Number of (types of) opportunities for food-related learning and skill development in
food and nutrition literacy, employment training and leadership.
Number of opportunities (courses, classes, etc.) for food system-related learning and skill development
in three different categories: food and nutrition literacy; employment training and leadership. This
indicator will support gathering baseline data on which to base analysis of gaps, needs, opportunities,
and to develop further action.
 24 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION
WORK STREAM

Food
production
Urban and peri-urban food
production and processing 20.Promote and strengthen
capacity is optimized and urban and peri-urban food
lessen dependence on production and processing.
distant food supply sources.

23. Protect and enable

secure access and tenure
to land for sustainable
Urban planners protect the food production in urban
local agricultural resource and peri-urban areas.
base and use in land use
and city development plans. 22. Apply an ecosystem
approach to guide holistic
and integrated land use
planning and management.

Producers have the 24. Help provide services

required knowledge, to food producers in
skills and expertise. and around cities.

Efficient and diverse 21. Seek coherence between

agricultural supply and the city and nearby rural
value chains connect the food production, processing
city with food producers and distribution.
in the peri-urban and
surrounding rural area 25. Support short food chains,
providing access to a producer organizations,
wide range of market producer-to-consumer
networks and platforms.
opportunities.

Strengthen connection
26. Improve (waste)
between urban and rural
water management
areas through recycling
and re-use in agriculture
and re-use of organic and food production.
waste, water and energy.
 25 

INDICATOR

25. Number of city residents within the municipal boundary with access to an urban
(agricultural) garden.
Measures the accessibility of city residents (and specific target groups) to urban agricultural gardens/land.
In order to account for geographic, economic and social differences across cities in access to gardens,
the indicator will only reflect impact accurately if data is filtered by geospatial location, population
density, income levels etc.

26. Presence of municipal policies and regulations that permit and promote agriculture
production and processing within the municipal area.
Assesses the presence of supportive municipal policies and regulation that permit and promote urban
agriculture production and processing. It will help define gaps or areas for improvement by revising/
formulating new policies and regulations.

27. Surface area of (potential) agricultural spaces within the municipal boundary.
Monitors the surface area of land within the municipal boundary used for agriculture, zoned/destined
for agriculture (although possibly not used at this moment) as well as open vacant and built up
spaces that could potentially be used for agriculture.

28. Proportion of total agricultural population –within the municipal boundaries - with
ownership or secure rights over agricultural land for food production, by gender.
Monitors ownership and rights over agricultural land by specifically promoting data disaggregation
by gender.

29. Proportion of agricultural land in the municipal area under sustainable agriculture.
Measures the total agricultural area in the municipality (also referred to as urban and peri-urban
agriculture) under sustainable agriculture (as per the total are of agricultural land in the municipal area).

30. Number of food producers that benefited from technical training and assistance in
the past 12 months.
Tracks the number of food producers (horticultural growers, smallholders and farmers) in and close
to the city who have received technical training and assistance over a given time period (e.g. last
twelve months).

31. Number of municipal food processing and distribution infrastructures available to

food producers in the municipal area.
Monitors the number (and type of) municipal infrastructure for storage, processing and distribution
of food located in the municipal area, including storage buildings, processing plants, transport
facilities and (wholesale and consumer) markets.

32. Proportion of local/regional food producers that sell their products to public markets
in the city.
Monitors the share of local/regional food producers that sell (part of) their products to one or more
public market outlets in the city

33. Annual proportion of urban organic waste collected that is re-used in agricultural
production taking place within municipal boundaries.
Measures the percentage of urban organic waste collected and recycled that is re-used in urban and
peri-urban agriculture production.
 26 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION
WORK STREAM

Food Food flow assessment

is done and increases
supply and understanding of possible 27. Assess the flows of food
distribution impacts resulting from to and through cities.
targeted improvements
in the food chain.

28. Support improved

Local food processing, food storage, processing,
storage and distribution transport and distribution
capacity is improved technologies and
and optimized. infrastructure linking peri-
urban and near rural areas.

31. Provide policy and

programme support
for municipal public
Food market functioning food markets.
and infrastructure is
improved and optimized. 32. Improve and
expand support for
infrastructure related to
food market systems.

Public procurement and 30. Review public

procurement and
trade policies facilitate
trade policy aimed at
local and sustainable food facilitating food supply
supply and distribution. from short chains.

Food processing, retail and

catering sectors comply 29. Assess, review and/
with sanitation and food or strengthen food
safety regulations. control systems.

33. Acknowledge the informal

Inclusion of the
sector’s contribution to
informal sector urban food systems
 27 

INDICATOR

34. Existence of policies/programmes that address the reduction of GHG emissions

in different parts of the food supply chain (e.g. processing, storage, transport,
packaging, retail, cooking, waste disposal etc.).
Assesses the existence of policies/programmes that address the reduction of GHG emissions in
different parts of the food supply chain (e.g. processing, storage, transport, packaging, retail, cooking,
waste disposal etc.).

35. Presence of a development plan to strengthen resilience and efficiency of local food
supply chains logistics.
Allows for (self)assessment of the presence, functioning and effectiveness of a development plan to
strengthen resilience and efficiency of local food supply chains logistics. It also helps to define areas
for improvement.

36. Number of fresh fruit and vegetable outlets per 1000 inhabitants (markets and shops)
supported by the municipality.
Measures the number of food markets or retail outlets providing fresh fruit and vegetables per 1000
inhabitants that are directly supported by the municipality in some way.

37. Annual municipal investment in food markets or retail outlets providing fresh food to
city residents, as a proportion of total (investment) budget.
Measures annual municipal investment in food markets or retail outlets providing fresh food to city
residents, as a proportion of total investment budget (or whichever budget is appropriate for city).

38. Proportion of food procurement expenditure by public institutions on food from

sustainable, ethical sources and shorter (local/regional) supply chains.
Measures the proportion of food procurement expenditure by public institutions on food from
sustainable, ethical sources and shorter (local/regional) supply chains. Indicator also measures presence
of a set of criteria to drive an increase in the proportion of food procurement expenditure by public
institutions on food from sustainable, ethical sources and shorter (local/regional) supply chains.

39. Presence of food safety legislation and implementation and enforcement procedures
Allows for (self)assessment of the presence, implementation and enforcement procedures for food
safety legislation.

40. Existence of support services for the informal food sector providing business
planning, finance, development advice.
Assesses the existence of support services for the informal food sector providing business planning, finance
and development advice. The focus here is primarily in relation to sanitation and food safety regulations,
but it is important to look at wider support needs and provision – e.g. infrastructure, skills etc.
 28 THE MILAN URBANFOOD POLICY PACTMONITORING FRAMEWORK

MUFFP
OUTCOME AREA RECOMMENDED ACTION
WORK STREAM

Food waste
34. Convene food system
actors to assess and
monitor food loss and waste
Food loss and waste reduction at all stages of the
is reduced (or re- city region food supply chain.
used) throughout
the food system. 35. Raise awareness
of food loss and waste
through targeted events
and campaigns.

36. Collaborate with the

Food loss and waste private sector along with
research, educational
policies and regulations
and community-based
are developed and
organizations to develop
supported by a broad and review, municipal policies
range of stakeholders. and regulations to prevent
waste or safely recover food.

Increase in the volume

37. Save food by facilitating
of safe food recovered
recovery and redistribution
and distributed for for human consumption.
human consumption.

References

1. UN. 2018. World Urbanization Prospect: the 2018 4. UN Habitat. 2010. The State of the World Cities
revision [online]. [Cited 25/09/2019]. 2010/2011. Bridging the Urban Divide. State of the
https://population.un.org/wup/ Publications/Files/ World’s Cities Reports. Nairobi, Kenya. 244 pp. (also
WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/11143016_alt.pdf).
2. FAO. 2017. The State of Food and Agriculture. Leveraging
Food Systems for Inclusive Rural Transformation [online]. 5. IFPRI. 2017. 2017 Global Food Policy Report [online].
Rome. [Cited 25/09/2019]. Washington DC. [Cited 25/09/2019].
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7658e.pdf http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/
p15738coll2/id/131085/filename/131296.pdf
3. Tefft, J.F., Jonasova, M., Adjao, R.T.O.A., & Morgan,
A. M. 2017. Food Systems for an Urbanizing World 6. WHO. 2018. Overweight and Obesity: Key Facts [online].
[online]. Rome, World Bank Group and FAO. [Cited [Cited 25/09/2019]. https://www.who.int/news-room/
25/09/2019]. http://documents.worldbank.org/ fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
curated/en/454961511210702794/Food-systems-for-
an-urbanizing-world-knowledge-product
 

INDICATOR

41. Total annual volume of food losses and waste

Measures (decrease in) total annual volume of food losses and waste.

42. Annual number of events and campaigns aimed at decreasing food loss and waste.
Collects information on the types of activities (events, campaigns, research studies), targeted sectors
(households, business, food service, manufacturing, production etc.) and - if applicable - the actual
impact on food waste reduction.

43. Presence of policies or regulations that address food waste prevention, recovery and
redistribution.
Measures presence of policies or regulations that address food waste prevention, reduction, recovery
and redistribution of safe and nutritious food for direct human consumption.

44. Total annual volume of surplus food recovered and redistributed for direct human
consumption.
Measures the totality of available food recovered and redistributed for direct human consumption
along the entire urban food supply chain, occurring from the time at which availability is recorded (in
urban and peri-urban areas) until it reaches and is used by the final urban consumer as food.

7. HLPE. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by 10. C40 Cities, Arup, University of Leeds. 2019. The Future
the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and of Urban Food Consumption in a 1.5 World [online].
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security [Cited 25/09/2019]. https://www.c40.org/consumption
[online]. Rome. [Cited 25/09/2019].
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf 11. WB. 2015. Investing in Urban Resilience. Protecting and
Promoting Development in a Changing World [online].
8. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. 2019. Health effects of Washington DC. [Cited 25/09/2019].
dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Investing%20in%20Urban%20Resilience%20Final.pdf
2017. Lancet 2019; 393: 1958–72 [online]. [Cited
25/09/2019]. https://www.thelancet.com/article/ 12. AfDB, OECD, UNDP. 2016. African Economic Outlook
S0140-6736(19)30041-8/fulltext 2016. Special Theme: Sustainable Cities and Structural
Transformation [online]. [Cited 25/09/2019].
9. WHO. 2017. Assessing the economic costs of unhealthy https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/
diets and low physical activity. An evidence review and Documents/Publications/AEO_2016_Report_Full_
proposed framework [online]. [Cited 25/09/2019]. English.pdf
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0004/342166/Unhealthy-Diets-ePDF-v1.pdf?ua=1 13. FAO. 2018. Sustainable Food Systems – Concept and
framework [online]. Rome. [Cited 25/09/2019].
http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf
 Last update: 15/04/2021

Plant Production and Protection Division – Natural Resources and Sustainable

Production & Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division – Partnerships and Outreach
[email protected]
http://www.fao.org/urban-food-agenda/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy
CA6144EN/1/09.19
© FAO, 2019

Some rights reserved. This work is available

under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO licence