3.1 Urban FSD policies
3.2 FSD strategies
3.3 FSD programmes
3.4 Coordinating and monitoring policy implementation
3.1.1 Key areas of policy concern
3.1.2 Policy goals
3.1.3 Complementarity between policies
3.1.4 Policy objectives
3.1.5 Conflicts between policies
3.1.6 Proposals for policies and strategies
An urban food supply and distribution (FSD) policy is a set of goals, objectives, strategies and programmes spanning regional, metropolitan, urban and local areas. It is set within a precise timeframe and is formulated in close collaboration with all concerned stakeholders. It guides city and local authorities (CLAs) in the use of resources under their control and through private sector investment, to improve access by urban households to stable supplies of good quality food, through efficient, hygienic, healthy and environmentally sound food supply and distribution systems (FSDSs).
This chapter suggests a conceptual framework for the design of the components of:
1. policy goals and objectives;
3. development programmes;
4. institutional responsibility.
An urban FSD policy usually focuses on three key areas detailed in Figure 3.1.
Other aspects of policy concern: urbanization, urban poverty and food security; urban food demand, consumption patterns and purchasing habits including nutritional aspects; FSDrelated employment and gender issues; market and nutritional information to consumers; role of central and local government institutions and private sector organizations in food supply and distribution systems (FSDSs); resource planning and management in urban and periurban areas; institution strengthening.
A policy goal is a broad statement of intent providing guidance for action. An urban FSD policy has three major goals (see Figure 3.2).
A well-functioning FSDS facilitates access to food. Alone it does not guarantee that those without the means to buy food can do so. Public action is required to generate incomes through employment creation, food subsidies, food stamps, among other remedies. Nutrition, hygiene and health education is also important for the most vulnerable consumers. Therefore an urban FSD policy supports and is supported by other policies and programmes (see Figure 3.3).
Policy objectives identify what is needed to achieve policy goals. Objectives are usually linked to one or more operational units and are typically short term, tied to annual budgets. They need to be amended as institutions respond to changes in resources and environment.
When designing urban FSD policies, it is necessary to ensure that:
Policy goals and objectives need to be logically related as indicated in A6.1.
Figure 3.1 Three Key Areas for Concern for Urban Food Supply and Distribution Policies
Projections for urban food and water needs; development of efficient and sustainable production, fishing, processing and storage in rural, periurban and urban areas; infrastructure, facilities and services for food assembly, handling, packaging and transport to cities; efficiency, transparency and dynamism of production and marketing systems; effectiveness of services (information, extension, etc.) to producers, processors and traders; food import logistics and procedures; promotion of private sector organizations and private investment; planning, development and management of slaughterhouses; legislation and regulations.
Planning, development and management of wholesale and retail markets and food shops; planning and organization of specific low-cost food distribution arrangements; street food and informal activities; modern distribution; intraurban transport; services to urban market users; promotion of market trader, shopkeeper and consumer associations and organizations; promotion of private investment in urban markets and shops; efficiency, transparency and dynamism of urban food distribution systems; legislation and regulations.
Food safety problems and contamination due to incorrect use of fertilizers, pesticides and wastewater, lack of hygiene in food supply and distribution activities and pollutants; legislation and regulations.
Management of waste from markets and slaughterhouses; air,
water and soil pollution caused by food supply and distribution activities;
forest depletion because of fuelwood use; legislation and regulations.
Efficient food supply and distribution systems to achieve:
Minimize food insecurity in poor urban households to achieve:
Eliminate food-related health problems and minimize the negative impact of food supply and distribution activities on the environment by fostering:
Source: Argenti, 2000.Figure 3.4 Programmes, Subprogrammes and Action Plans
Source: Argenti, 2000.Figure 3.5 Basic Principles for Food Supply and Distribution Strategies
Principle 1 Right Approach
Adopt an approach which is consultative, participatory, open-minded, alliance seeking and technically sound.
Private sector associations and organizations must be promoted and encouraged to play an active role in planning decisions to address constraints faced by members.
Principle 2 Competition
Promote competition and reduce the influence of large intermediaries.
The use of weighing scales promotes fair practices in markets.
Principle 3 No Fashions
Resist fashions for "modernization" or "preserving tradition". Encourage developments which lower the cost of living and stimulate employment growth in the city.
Farmer and itinerant markets provide low-cost food in poor urban districts.
Principle 4 Go Private
Facilities and services that can be run as businesses are best left to the private sector.
Market infrastructure must be properly maintained, managed and
developed to accomodate increasing food quantities coming to cities.
Conflicts may arise between macro-economic policies and specific FSD policies. It will be necessary to assess the impact of national policies on various areas, among which:
Legislative and regulatory
Are budget allocations to city and local authorities in line with increasing responsibilities, especially for transport and market infrastructure development?
Food trade development
Will plans to make the food sector more professional harm micro- and small-scale food production, marketing and processing initiatives?
Tax and tariffs
Do measures to control inflation and public sector budgetary requirements obstruct private investments in food supply and distribution?
Are prospective reductions in government budgets likely to stifle re-training of staff required by changes in policy orientation and decentralization programmes?
Micro, small and medium enterprises
Will plans to make the food sector more professional harm micro- and small-scale food production, marketing and processing enterprises?
Table 3.1 Elaboration of Strategies
Strategies relating to the external factors:
Specific strategies relating to the internal factors:
Proposals for urban FSD policies and strategies should be structured as indicated in Table 3.2.
Strategies describe how policy objectives and goals can be achieved.
FSD strategies must be seen in the context of policies and customs governing different aspects of economic and social life. Economic life concerns structural adjustment, economic liberalization and decentralization. Social life encompasses religious and ethnic rules.
Urban FSD strategies should follow four basic principles (see Figure 3.5 and Table 3.1).
A particularly important strategic consideration is the extent of public versus private responsibility (see A4.3).
FSDS strategies may be designed maintaining the distinction between external and internal factors, as suggested in § 3.1. An example is provided in A6.2.
Figure 3.6 Evolution of Urban Food Distribution Subsystems
Source: Tracey-White, 1991.
Table 3.2 Structure of Policy and Strategy Proposal
1. Background and justification from summary of consolidated case study (maximum 500 words)
Food marketing is a source of employment and income for the poor, particularly women and youth.
3.3.1 Preparing the programme
3.3.2 Definition and verification of objectives and strategies
3.3.3 Organization of sets of results
3.3.4 Financial implications
Once solutions, policies and strategies have been agreed upon among all concerned stakeholders, FSD development programmes spanning regional, metropolitan, urban and local areas (see Figure 3.4) need to be designed.
FSD programmes are sets of coherent and logically structured interventions and expected results. They are set within a timeframe with well-defined implementation tasks. Their specific objectives are linked to the achievement of FSD policy goals and objectives. This occurs in the urban area in conjunction with periurban and rural areas from where the city gets its food supplies, or through which the food consumed in the city transits.
The design of FSD programmes is an iterative process comprising the following stages:
1. design of programmes (identification of geographic areas);Programmes, subprogrammes and action plans should comprise clearly identified targets and indicators (see § 3.4). Actions plans should also include expected results, related interventions as well as institutional responsibilities.
2. design of subprogrammes (identification of main technical areas);
3. design of action plans for each subprogramme.
Action plans focus on specific themes (e.g.: market infrastructure, transport; services, environment protection, institution strengthening), arranged by specific topics. They can be structured in terms of the time allowed for achieving the expected results:
For examples see A6.3, A6.4 and A6.5.
Table 3.3 Coherence of Strategies between Programmes and Action Plans
1. Dialogue between public and private sectors;
Strategies of action plan "Urban market improvement"
Strategies of action plan "Improving rural-urban food transport"
Note: The numbers in brackets refer to the relevant overall programme strategy.
The results of each stage should be presented as forms. Together, these forms will constitute the development programme document:
The formulation of a FSDS development programme also entails defining the objectives of subprogrammes and action plans (see A6.11). All such objectives must aim to achieve one or more objectives set for the overall development programme.
Each programme and subprogramme must be formulated making sure that the proposed interventions are consistent with overall policy strategies (see Table 3.3 and 3.4).
Sets of results for each action plan should be gauged over time and capable of being quantified. Sets of results for "action plan A" are presented in A6.12. An example of this process is shown in A6.13.
Calculating the financial cost of each intervention may be not straightforward. This is because there may be different ways to achieve a result (e.g. the rehabilitation of a specific urban market), each implying different costs. Other times, the full financial implication of a proposal may require a detailed analysis or a pre-feasibility study. Whenever possible, an estimate of the financial cost components in local and foreign currencies should be provided.
Urban gardens provide cheap fresh food for household consumption. But crops may be a source of health risks.
Table 3.4 Coherence of Action Plan A "Urban Market Improvement"
Objective of specific subprogrammes
Urban food markets are clean and functional places where
traders and consumers can safely meet.
Objectives of results
All urban market have functional infrastructure within six
Hygiene and safety conditions in all urban markets meet
official standards within three years.
All urban markets are efficiently managed within ten
The steps from constraint analysis to policy implementation are summarized (see A6.14).
Monitoring progress in the implementation of FSD policy and programmes is essential for accountability to the electorate and to central government.
FSD programmes usually need to be implemented by several different authorities and departments. Each implementing authority or department should have agreed FSD policy targets against which its performance can be assessed (see Table 3.5 and 3.6).
A food supply and distribution policy unit can assist in coordinating and monitoring policy implementation (see A6.15).
Table 3.5 Benefits and Characteristics of Good Performance Indicators
Good performance indicators have the following benefits:
Good performance indicators should be:
Source: Rose and Lawton (1999).Table 3.6 An Example of Targets and Indicators