Dear authors and moderators,
First of all, congratulations on a fantastic and comprehensive report that sets out a compelling conceptual framework and strong key principles. Attached you will find Rikolto's contribution to the consultation on the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19.
Our comments focus on several points which are detailed in the document attached:
- Language: we are concerned that the jargon and academic language used in the report may deter what we imagine to be its intended users (government representatives, practitioners, etc.) from engaging with it.
- Operationalisation of the framework: the report is very theory-heavy and we feel that it would be significantly more accessible if it included practical illustrations and examples of the concepts described. This is done in some sections but not everywhere. Chapter 6 on institutional & policy pathways is weaker compared to the rest of the report. We would like to see more recommendations on how to translate the theoretical suggestions into concrete actions on the ground.
- Food systems approach and trade-offs: we find that there is insufficient reference to the potential trade-offs and co-benefits with other food system outcome areas namely livelihoods, environmental sustainability and resilience (which was nevertheless addressed to some extent). This is particularly evident in the section on institutional and policy pathways, where several examples of policy instruments were considered only through the lens of food security and nutrition.
- Foodsheds vs. territories: the concept of foodshed encourages the reader to view production areas solely through the lens of their role in feeding cities which is limitative and carries an extractive connotation. The concepts of city-region food systems and food territories seem more appropriate.
- Youth: Youth-led movements, CSO initiatives, and SMEs play an important role in putting emerging issues at the forefront and innovating new ways to produce, distribute, process, and consume food in cities. We encourage the authors to acknowledge youth’s leadership in urban food system transformation and to highlight ways in which (local) governments can support them and harness their efforts.
- The role of private sector, particularly SMEs: the report doesn't clearly articulate how governments can harness the financial and innovative potential of the private sector while protecting themselves from undue influence by corporate actors. As it stands, the private sector is largely absent from most of the report. We would like to see more examples of how governments can work with SMEs to increase the sustainability, efficiency, and resilience of urban and peri-urban food systems, for example through school feeding programmes, local food distribution platforms or the provision of services to smallholder producers and small-scale processors.
- Interplay with export markets: we believe that it would also be relevant to explore the interplay between export dynamics and urban food system dynamics, where export markets can provide incentives for the adoption of good and safe agricultural practices, while at the same time providing investments in infrastructure, service provision and capacity that could be used in support of better access to nutritious and safe food in urban food markets in a context of market segmentation by farmer organisations.
- Case studies: finally, we suggest two case studies for your consideration: one on the Good Food parliament in Mbale, Uganda, and one on the Superlist initiative in Belgium which aims to make healthy and sustainable food consumption an easier choice for citizens.
We wish you all the best in finalising the report and look forward to reading the final version!
Charlotte Flechet on behalf of Rikolto's Good Food for Cities' team (https://www.rikolto.org/programmes/good-food-for-cities)
Ms. Charlotte Flechet