How dietary guidelines could be used to improve coherence of food systems policies for better health and environmental outcomes

在城市大学的第一个核心中进行的政策绘图和一致性分析将建立在以下基础上，包括：* 利益相关者访谈，以帮助了解政策在现实中如何运作，政策过程和影响途径 * 全球其他政府/政策的范围，以了解将健康饮食/饮食指南纳入农业和贸易政策的任何例子物种分布建模政策分析将通过建模饮食驱动的土地利用变化对生物多样性的影响来支持。这意味着进一步发展伦敦大学学院核心2中创建的场景，其中通过减少红肉、乳制品、油和糖的生产来改变英国的土地利用（从而改变粮食生产）。水果和蔬菜产量的增加。*这种情景的发展可能涉及将土地用于生物燃料和动物饲料纳入计算，并可能包括土地共享与土地节约做法的情景变化。如果可能的话，土地用途改变的位置将与最适合这种改变的地区以及可能受某些政策影响较大的地区联系起来（例如威尔士鼓励新园艺企业的政策）权衡分析然后，将这一情景与政策一致性联系起来，可将这一设想的结果与其他目标和政策进行比较，以审查哪些目标和政策也可通过这些粮食供应和土地使用的变化来实现。例如，可以包括的一些目标是 * NFS建议在未来10年内将肉类消费量减少30%* 英国气候变化委员会（CCC）建议到2030年将反刍动物肉类（牛肉和羊肉）和乳制品的摄入量减少20%，到2050年减少35%。CCC的净零路径还要求到2035年释放9%的农业用地，到2050年释放21%。英国政府承诺到2030年保护30%的陆地和海洋（尽管目前的情况不包括海洋，因此需要考虑如何处理）* 即将出台的环境法还规定了土地使用和生物多样性的各种目标。然而，该法案最近进行了公众咨询，因此最终目标可能与以下列出的目标略有不同：到2050年将树木总覆盖率提高3%（从14.5%提高到17.5%）到2030年阻止物种丰度下降到2042年将物种丰度提高10%到2042年创造或恢复50万公顷的野生动物丰富的栖息地。这一步骤可以与权衡分析相结合。如果无法实现所有目标，则可以探讨不同的目标组合，以评估哪些目标可以一起实现，潜在的共同效益是什么，以及这些决定的连锁效应或意外后果。

The policy mapping and coherence analysis carried out in the first Kernel at City University will be built upon, incorporating:* Stakeholder interviews to help understand how the policies work in reality, the policy process, and pathways of influence *Scoping of other governments/policies globally for any examples of integration of healthy diets/dietary guidelines into agriculture and trade policySpecies distribution modelling The policy analysis would be supported by modelling the impact of diet driven land use change on biodiversity. This would mean further developing e scenario that was created in Kernel 2 at University College London, in which the land use (and therefore food production) in the UK was changed through reductions in red meat, dairy, oil and sugar production and an increase in the production of fruit and vegetables.*The development of this scenario could involve incorporating the land use for biofuels and animal feed into calculations, and potentially including variations of the scenario with land sharing versus land sparing practices.*If possible the locations of the land use changes would be linked with areas that are most suitable for that changes, as well as areas that may be more influenced by certain policies (for example Welsh policy to encourage new horticulture businesses)Trade-off analysisThen, linking this scenario with policy coherence, the outcomes of the scenario could be compared with other targets and policies to examine which ones could also be achieved through these food supply and land use changes. For example, some of the targets which could be included are*The NFS recommends a 30% reduction in the consumption of meat over the next 10 years*UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommend reducing intakes of ruminant meat (beef and lamb) and dairy by 20% by 2030, and a 35% reduction by 2050.*The CCC's Net Zero pathway also requires the release of 9% of agricultural land by 2035, and 21% by 2050.*UK government's pledge to protect 30% of land and seas by 2030 (although the current scenario does not include sea, so would need to consider how this could be handled)*The upcoming Environmental Act also sets out various targets on land use and biodiversity. However, this Act was recently out for public consultation, therefore final targets may vary slightly from those outlined below:Increase total tree cover by 3% (from 14.5% to 17.5%) by 2050Halt decline in species abundance by 2030oIncrease species abundance by 10% by 2042 compared to 2030 levelsCreate or restore 500,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. This step could be combined with a trade-off analysis. If all targets cannot be met, different combinations of targets could be explored to assess which could be met together, what the potential co-benefits are, and the knock-on effects or unintended consequences of these decisions.