Congratulations for a great zero draft. As for all “emerging” topics, HLPE reports are logically limited by the fact that available research has not been addressing them so far in a comprehensive way (which is why we definitely need to take stock of the State of the art but also to explicitly acknowledge gaps and limitations and needs for further research). It would be useful to relate this work to the work previously carried out by the CFS (OEWG Urbanization, Rural Transformation and Implications for Food Security and Nutrition), but also to the series of side events related to CFS, HLPF, UNFSS1and UNFSS2?
I would be happy to expand and discuss on the following issues if relevant
1. Conceptual framework
Paradoxically I believe the approach followed is 1/ too urban centered and 2/ too SDG2 related for the CFS at this point in time.
The transformation of food systems is now acknowledged as a concrete means to bring together several SDGs. Nature-based solutions have been identified as an important dimension of sustainability and multi-level governance as a key issue. It is time to revisit development from a geographical perspective and reposition cities as key actors in sustainable territorial development and localization of SDGs.
Such an approach would in my view be more acceptable to both CFS members and the wider food and agriculture world, most of which have been reluctant so far to address urban issues, as they felt it would further increase the perceived bias towards urban areas and accelerate the marginalisation of rural areas. If instead we start framing the problem within an accountability perspective in which cities become responsible for more functional urban rural linkages, this could generate a behaviour change but also help to link the food security and nutrition agenda with other major agendas, such as climate change, social justice or more generally SDG localization.
We should follow our environment colleagues and adopt a territorial or biogeographical perspective (usually cross-border) in which cities play a key role rather than food sheds that are by definition urban-geared and accelerate bias.
2. The six dimensions of food security:
As FAO staff member from 1990 to 2013, I witnessed the evolution from national food security to the three pillars, then the addition of the 4th one and since I retired the further addition of two more. This in my view reflected the internal and external evolution of food and agriculture partners and theories (including governments, donors and academia) and the tensions within different technical approaches often within the same organization. And then we spent most of a much needed energy to retrofit reality into a mould which has no logical basis, at the same time pushing development actors to accept the same mould. So no I do not think this is of much use and if we could stop adding more and more jargon which needs to be translated and explained across cultures, we could have a chance to get more people around the table.
3. Issues which would deserve more attention
The draft report should in my view pay more attention to right to food, social justice and environment (including recent CoPs on biodiversity and climate change). Cities and local governments were quite active and written material could be relevant.
At a time when cities are besieged and their inhabitants are food insecure and malnourished, the report should definitely include a section on conflict. Some information can be found at https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc-reference-group-on-meeting-humanitarian-challenges-in-urban-areas
It might also be worth looking at culture, as food is a fundamental dimension of culture and cities are engaged in a variety of cultural initiatives, networks and programmes/projects.
The report mentions secondary cities. Increasing attention has been given lately to small and intermediary cities (e.g. OECD, UCLG). Is this the same?
On more specific issues, the attention provided by the report to short food chains and markets is most appreciated. Re. wholesale markets, land costs are becoming a major issue worldwide and the whole distribution systems is in transition with the development of e-commerce. Work on street foods (local and convenience foods) and the informal sector could add to this issue. Re. supermarketisation, it would be interesting to document the outcome of cash voucher programmes on purchasing practices and nutritional content of foods. The promotion of green leafy vegetables in Kenyan Ushumi supermarkets (Bioversity International) or of pre-cooked quinoa in Perú would constitute interesting examples of promotion of traditional foods.
Urban agriculture is also playing a key role in re-linking urban populations with nature.
More attention could be given to collective restauration: public procurement is one of the tools cities can use to transform food systems (and generate behaviour change) but the private sector (food services, HORECA…) are also active urban players.
Another issue is that of solidarity networks and urban-rural linkages, which as far as I know have not been explicitly researched and documented. For example strong linkages exist between urban households and communities of origin. Villagers send to their families in town (fresh) agricultural products and fuelwood. Urban families in exchange send sugar, flour, salt and other food products during the hungry season. This is particularly the case for rural-urban migrants and indigenous people .
Not enough attention to solidarity networks or related initiatives. The comedores populares movement in Latin America are a key example of women’s empowerment.
The legal and regulatory challenges go far beyond taxation issues.
4. Additional references
The team may have already reviewed and regarded the following documents or links
· Promises and Challenges of the informal food sector in developing countries https://www.fao.org/3/a1124e/a1124e00.htm
· On Street foods https://www.fao.org/fcit/food-processing/en/
Dr. Florence Egal