Heinrich Böll Foundation – Food Systems and Poverty: A Comparative Analysis of Italy, France, and Germany

Why EStà and FHB

The partnership between EStà and the Heinrich Böll Foundation stems from the need to produce rigorous analyses of issues critical to sustainability and social equity at the European level. As an international political-ecological think tank, the Heinrich Böll Foundation has commissioned EStà to produce two research reports that provide a comparative analysis of the models in Italy, France, and Germany in two strategic areas: food systems and support for food-insecure populations.

EStà contributes to the partnership with its recognized technical expertise in the analysis of urban food systems and food policies. This expertise is essential for developing research that is not merely descriptive, but provides concrete data and benchmarks useful for informing public policy and guiding the transition toward more equitable and resilient food systems at the local and international levels. The goal of the collaboration is to combine the need for political and international relevance promoted by the Böll Foundation with EStà’s analytical capabilities. The reports aim to fill a knowledge gap regarding European models, offering policymakers and stakeholders the assessment tools necessary to address the challenges of food security, ecological sustainability, and social justice.

The first report

The report “Climate, Poverty and Policies: Food Systems in France, Germany, and Italy” (2024) offers a comprehensive and contextualized analysis of the interconnections between food systems and the major challenges of sustainability, focusing on urban and peri-urban areas in Italy, France, and Germany.

Three areas are analyzed:

• Food systems, climate change, and global risks: An analysis of the food system—defined as the set of elements and activities ranging from production to consumption and waste disposal—shows that the production phase is the primary source of climate-changing emissions. Italy performs better in terms of total CO2-equivalent emissions per capita, primarily due to lower impacts associated with beef consumption compared to France and pork consumption compared to Germany. However, the analysis also reveals a strong dependence on foreign imports: Italy relies on foreign suppliers for grains (except rice and oats) and legumes, while France and Germany depend significantly on foreign imports for fruits and vegetables, largely due to their climatic conditions. Excessive dependence on external factors exposes national food systems to the risk of supply disruptions in the event of global crises.
• Food systems and policies: The report highlights the need to address sustainability through policies that recognize the crucial role of cities. Urban food policies, though relatively new, are essential for tackling complex issues such as climate change and poverty. At the European level, the “Farm to Fork” strategy (2020) aims to establish a legislative framework for sustainable food systems, with specific targets, such as a 50% reduction in the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030. Among the report’s final proposals are the promotion of the right to food as a fundamental human right and the strengthening of cooperation among countries, especially at the local level, to develop strategies for sustainability and social justice.
• The third area concerns food systems and food poverty, a systemic and structural issue of fundamental importance in Europe, which we have decided to explore in greater depth by devoting an entire second report to it. A closer examination of poverty was necessary given its close correlation with worsening inequalities and evidence of a rising incidence of poverty, including unequal access to healthy, high-quality food, in the three countries analyzed.

The second report

The second report, “Three Different Models of Food Poverty Intervention: Italy, France, Germany” (2025), therefore analyzes how high-income countries address food poverty, defined as the inability to access safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for a healthy and active life. The report compares three divergent institutional models (Italy, France, Germany) and assesses the transition from emergency aid to the universal right to food, in line with the integration of the FEAD (European Fund for the Most Deprived) into the ESF+ (European Social Fund Plus). The analysis highlights how European systems continue to be predominantly focused on food assistance, despite the formal objective of promoting social inclusion.

• Italy, a hybrid public-civil society approach: Italy has adopted a hybrid model that is centralized in terms of coordination but decentralized in terms of needs assessment, with significant operational authority delegated to the Third Sector. The “solidarity network,” based on an extensive network of approximately 10,000 Territorial Partner Organizations (OPTs), ensures broad coverage. Although there has been a shift toward combining material assistance with social inclusion measures, the system has structural weaknesses, including the inadequate nutritional quality of aid (often based on surplus food) and a heavy reliance on volunteer labor. Innovations such as solidarity stores and Food Aid Hubs (such as the Cuccagna Hub in Milan) seek to move beyond the welfare-based approach, promoting autonomy and dignity through a self-service model and integration with social and health services.
• France, a centralized, state-led model: The French system is highly institutionalized, characterized by strong state involvement and centralized logistics managed by public agencies such as FranceAgriMer. France has opted for Type I Operational Programs (OPs), which focus on material and food assistance. A distinctive feature is the Garot Law (2016), which requires large retailers to enter into agreements with charities for the recovery of food surpluses. Despite its effectiveness, the system suffers from bureaucratic rigidity, reliance on volunteer labor, and limited nutritional quality of aid (70% consists of dry or long-shelf-life products). In response to these limitations, local initiatives such as the Caisse Alimentaire de Montpellier (CAC) promote an approach based on social rights, providing targeted cash transfers (monnaie alimentaire) for the purchase of high-quality, sustainable food, thereby restoring dignity and freedom of choice.
• Germany, a decentralized system led by civil society: Germany relies on a historically decentralized and civic-based system, with a low degree of institutionalization in food assistance. Assistance is managed almost exclusively by third-sector organizations, particularly the Tafel (food banks), which focus on the recovery and redistribution of food surpluses and are funded almost entirely by private donations. Germany has opted for Type II Operational Programs (OPs), focused on social inclusion measures rather than direct material assistance. While this model constitutes an exceptional infrastructure of solidarity, it poses significant limitations: demand exceeds supply, the quality of aid is limited (depending on food surpluses), and access to food is not guaranteed as a universal right, leading to regional disparities.

The report concludes that to overcome the problems of fragmentation, stigma, and inadequate quality of aid, a paradigm shift is needed—from charity to justice. Common proposals at the European level include improved monitoring to measure the actual impact of inclusion measures (not just the meals distributed), a structural assessment of monetary instruments (such as vouchers or food cards), and the adoption of coordinated national policies that guarantee access to decent, quality food. The Peruvian example of ollas comunes (community kitchens), which combine assistance, self-sufficiency, and political advocacy, offers a contrasting model and a critique of the welfare approach prevalent in high-income countries.