Consultation

Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation – V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19

During its 50th Plenary Session (10 – 13 October 2022), the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) to produce a report entitled “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation” which will be the 19th report of the HLPE-FSN. The overall aim of the report is to explore the issues surrounding urbanization, rural transformation and their implications for food security and nutrition (FSN). The report was also tasked to develop action-oriented policy recommendations on urban and peri-urban food systems that will encourage coordinated policies for FSN across rural, urban and peri-urban areas, taking into account the specific needs of diverse rural and urban contexts and the linkages between them.

The report will be presented at CFS 52th plenary session in October 2024 and provide recommendations to the CFS workstream “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation”.

As the CFS Multi-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW) 2024-2027 indicates, “growing urbanization, combined with the reorientation of urban and peri-urban agricultural lands to more profitable uses, have been gradually leading to a “geographical decoupling” of urban areas from sources of food supply, posing higher risks for food security and nutrition. In the absence of specific food systems planning across the rural-urban continuum, the sale and consumption of highly processed foods is growing in most urban centers, while local commerce that delivers healthy, fresh food at affordable prices is neglected, with negative impacts on food security and nutrition.”

Over 50 percent of the world’s population already live in urban areas, and that proportion is set to increase to over 70 percent by 2050. Approximately 1.1 billion people currently live in urban informal settlements, with two billion more expected in the next 30 years. Correspondingly, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms is increasingly an urban challenge, with 50 percent of urban populations in the least-developed countries being food-insecure, compared with 43 percent in rural areas.

It is imperative to address the challenges of urbanization in relation to rural transformation to “build back better” in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of climate change and conflicts. The current multi-layered global food crisis points to the importance and potential of the territorial dimension of food systems – addressing poverty and inequality, building resilience and social inclusion and fostering sustainable livelihoods.

To respond to this CFS request and as part of the report development process, the HLPE-FSN is launching this e-consultation to seek inputs, suggestions and comments on the V0 draft of the report.

HLPE-FSN V0 drafts of reports are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as work in progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to properly consider the feedback received in the elaboration of the report. E-consultations are a key part of the inclusive and knowledge-based dialogue between the HLPE-FSN Steering Committee and the scientific and knowledge community at large.

Questions to guide the e-consultation on the V0 draft of the report

This V0 draft identifies areas for recommendations and contributions on which the HLPE-FSN of the CFS welcomes suggestions or proposals, in particular addressing the following questions:

1.

The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020).

Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?

Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?

Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?

2.

The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability.

Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in urban and peri-urban food systems?

3.

Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered?

Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report?

Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?

4.

Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?

Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?

5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?
6.

Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:

a) evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;

b) efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;

c) efforts made to enhance the right to food in urban and peri-urban settings;

d) examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production; and

e) examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems.

 

The results of this consultation will be used by the HLPE-FSN to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to peer review, before finalization and approval by the HLPE-FSN drafting team and the Steering Committee (more details on the different steps of the process, are available here).

This consultation is open until 26 January 2024.

We thank in advance all the contributors for reading, commenting and providing inputs on this V0 draft of the report. Comments can be submitted in English, French and Spanish.

The HLPE-FSN looks forward to a rich and fruitful consultation!

Co-facilitators:

Évariste Nicolétis, HLPE-FSN Coordinator

Paola Termine, HLPE-FSN Programme Officer

 

تم إغلاق هذا النشاط الآن. لمزيد من المعلومات، يُرجى التواصل معنا على : [email protected] .

* ضغط على الاسم لقراءة جميع التعليقات التي نشرها العضو وتواصل معه / معها مباشرةً
  • أقرأ 75 المساهمات
  • عرض الكل

HLPF Consultation

Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation – V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19

Response: Anna Davies, PhD, FTCD, MRIA, FISC

Introduction

This is a timely and comprehensive report addressing urgent issues. In particular flagging the importance of going beyond a supply-side focus which has dominated agri-food debates historically. Increasing the prominence of UPU landscapes will be crucial in any just transition to sustainable food systems. Usefully, it flags the internally and externally uneven power of urban areas to shape food systems. This nuanced reading of power and place is significant and welcome, both in relation to the differential power of urban governments in shaping urban food systems in different places and in terms of the differential power of particular constituents within a specific urban area. The report emphasises the role of spatial planning, provision of basic infrastructural services, environmental health policies and local economic development policy, in shaping UPU food security and food systems, and makes the important point that these practices are rarely acknowledged as food policy but should be. The report also recognises that attending to food availability and economic accessibility are necessary, but alone insufficient to ensure urban food security and nutrition, and that food systems designed to meet this need alone are damaging human and planetary health. However, while the inclusion of food security is hugely welcome, the report could do with more attention to the non-human elements and how these affect food security and nutrition, such as biodiversity and climate change.

In this response to the Zero Draft I provide below comments on the pre-set questions and following this additional commentary of selected sections of the report. These are intended to strengthen the report and I hope these are useful in future iterations.

1. Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems? Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers? Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?

The framework provides an effective means of organising the key issues which are complex and interconnected. At present guidance is high level so is likely to be of limited practical help for policy makers on a day-to-day scale, but it is impossible to provide practical guidance at this level in a global study due to the significance of historical, cultural, economic, regulatory, social and other factors. Contexts in which interventions (such as new policy developments, reconfiguration of policy etc.) are made are also constantly evolving. One size will not fit all. Even once developed with context in mind an intervention will need to be further adapted to ever changing contexts. I do not have any examples where the proposed conceptual framework has been operationalised in toto. I would be surprised if any exist given the fragmented nature of UPU food governance.

2. The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability. Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in urban and peri-urban food systems?

This broader definition is important and usefully articulated in the report. There is considerable material presented around some dimensions (e.g. availability, access), less in relation to sustainability, which itself has multiple dimensions. Expanding and strengthening attention to sustainability dimensions would be useful, particularly in relation to climate change and biodiversity components and perhaps also care and wellbeing.

3. Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered? Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report? Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?

The report is extremely thorough in mapping existing data around many trends/variables/elements. I’m not sure there is anything ‘missing’ per se. However, the overall impression is that elements/initiatives/alternative approaches are evaluated against their success to date within the current (e.g. unsustainable) system. There is the danger then of unintended consequences which may dismiss currently niche, small-scale, emergent, novel, non-mainstream activities because of their limited success to date, within this flawed system. The report indicates limitations of some emergent and alternative mechanisms but these limitations arise from within an unreconstructed and unsustainable urban food system context – as a result it is unsurprising that they do not fair well. This should not be a reason to discount them when transitioning to more sustainable food systems where their full impact and value (e.g. beyond financial value) may be better recognised.

The report is primarily focused on lower income contexts, which is well-justified in terms of pressures around food security and nutrition but this focus may miss opportunities for highlighting alternative possibilities.

The following issues are mentioned in passing, but remain under-developed compared to other elements. This may be because data is missing, unavailable, incomparable however it is possible to use this report to call for more and better data around key elements such as:

  • Co-benefits around food systems transformation relating to biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation
  • Attention to technology beyond that used for improving food production and commercial distribution logistics. For example, information and communications technologies which are increasingly widely adopted in global north and south for connecting people and organisations e.g. FoodCloud foodiverse platform pilot studies in technology-led solution to food waste reduction in Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana through food redistribution via food banks. Platform economies are more than just online food delivery platforms, they support a host of activities, tools and services across the food system from social dining (e.g. EatWith) through to urban harvesting.
  • Just transitions - It is great to see power given a high profile in the document. However, more could have been said about just transitions, and in particular inclusive participation and engagement with diverse publics around UPU food systems in terms of influence and development planning (e.g. fairer futuring). More explicit attention to how food security relates to food justice and sovereignty (perhaps around seed sovereignty) could also strengthen discussions around just transitions to sustainability.
  • Non-commercial food activities – given the dominance of capitalist approaches to food it is unsurprising to find the bulk of data in the report relates to these kinds of activities. However, the report also seems to equate commercial with formal and everything else as informal which is too blunt and is in danger of missing an important and potentially transformative set of activities as a result. Here activities would include grassroots, community-based collective actions around food such as community gardens, community seed banks, community kitchens, community-based surplus food redistribution activities (sometimes termed food sharing as an umbrella category). The landscape and impacts of such activities globally has not been established, explaining why attention to this group of activities taken collectively (e.g. as a sector) is relatively under-developed in the report, Nonetheless there are emergent projects which are beginning to map and assess the sustainability impacts of this sector in the UPU setting e.g. Horizon Europe Innovation Action CULTIVATE (focused on European UPU food sharing). Previous research e.g. SHARECITY, identified the existence of such activities across every continent using digital traces which itself would under report the actual scale and scope of activities. Additionally, the power of UPU residents should not be reduced to only shaping demand for commercial food products and services, they can also be agents for growing food individually (home gardening, allotments etc.) or collectively (e.g. community gardens, co-ops, etc.) and redistributing food.

4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included? Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?

This Handbook provides comprehensive coverage of a range of urban food governance dimensions including sections on history, practices, theories and futures:

Moragues-Faus, A., Clark, J. K., Battersby, J., & Davies, A. (2022). Towards Urban Food Governance for More Sustainable and Just Futures. In Routledge Handbook of Urban Food Governance (pp. 1- 19). Routledge.

Relating to matters of public participation and futuring around urban food (mentioned in point 3 above):

Fitzgerald, L. M., & Davies, A. R. (2022). Creating fairer futures for sustainability transitions. Geography Compass, 16(10), e12662.

Davies, A. R., Cretella, A., & Franck, V. (2019). Food sharing initiatives and food democracy: Practice and policy in three European cities. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 8-20.

Relating to non-commercial UPU food initiatives (mentioned in point 3 above):

Davies, A. R. (2019). Urban food sharing: Rules, tools and networks (p. 124). Policy Press

Davies, A. R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., & Weymes, M. (2017). Making visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum, 86, 136-149

Weymes, M., & Davies, A. R. (2019). [Re] Valuing Surplus: Transitions, technologies and tensions in redistributing prepared food in San Francisco. Geoforum, 99, 160-169.

Marovelli, B. (2019). Cooking and eating together in London: Food sharing initiatives as collective spaces of encounter. Geoforum, 99, 190-201.

Morrow, O., & Davies, A. (2022). Creating careful circularities: community composting in New York City. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 47(2), 529-546.

Jackson, P., Rivera Ferre, M. G., Candel, J., Davies, A., Derani, C., de Vries, H., ... & Thøgersen, J. (2021). Food as a commodity, human right or common good. Nature Food, 2(3), 132-134

Davies, A. R., Rut, M., & Feeney, J. K. (2022). Seeds of change? Social practices of urban community seed sharing initiatives for just transitions to sustainability. Local Environment, 27(6), 784- 799

Mackenzie, S. G., & Davies, A. R. (2022). Assessing the sustainability impacts of food sharing initiatives: User testing The Toolshed SIA. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 807690.

Mackenzie, S. G., & Davies, A. R. (2019). SHARE IT: Co-designing a sustainability impact assessment framework for urban food sharing initiatives. Environmental impact assessment review, 79, 106300

Relating to use of ICT/platform economies in UPU food systems (mentioned in point 3 above):

Davies, A. R., Donald, B., Gray, M., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2017). Sharing economies: moving beyond binaries in a digital age. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 209-230

 

5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?

No, although the extent of historical context could be revisited and the writing tightened with each chapter having a summary of key points upfront in each perhaps.

6. Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:

a) evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;

b) efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;

​​​​​​​c) efforts made to enhance the right to food in urban and peri-urban settings;

​​​​​​​d) examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production; and

​​​​​​​e) examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems.

 

Really need to define what is meant by ‘success’ here and the kind of metrics could be used. Many of the references to non-commercial initiatives listed above might be considered successful in non- financial sustainability terms (e.g. social, educational, environmental etc.). Other ‘successful’ initiatives might have been negatively affected by shifting or uneven power relations within particular areas, so their success or failure may not be related to their impacts or potential but other exogenous issues due to wider politics and conditions.

Comments below are made on a chapter by chapter basis:

Introduction

Some of these are visible in key message Sec 1 but deserve greater attention in the body of the document.

  • This ‘urbanization of poverty’ becomes food insecurity as the urban poor spend a large amount of their income on food and bear the cost of urban living.
  • Urban and peri-urban food systems have historically been oriented towards meeting availability and affordability of foods for urban populations. Urban and peri-urban food systems are currently unsustainable, unjust, nutritionally unbalanced, and prone to shocks.
  • As much as there are challenges, urbanization also provides opportunities for livelihoods, improved diets and increased agency.

Tension in Key Messages

  • Urban and peri-urban food systems have historically been oriented towards meeting availability and affordability of foods for urban populations. Urban and peri-urban food systems are currently unsustainable, unjust, nutritionally unbalanced, and prone to shocks.
  • There is an urgent need for interventions to strengthen food security and nutrition within urban and peri-urban food systems and reorient them to improve access and diet quality. Interventions should be guided by an understanding of the interactions between food security and nutrition, food systems, governance processes, and urbanization.

The above two key messages seem to be in slight tension – the first identifies the historical focus and identifies the limitations of this approach. The second still focuses on access with the added ‘quality’ however without explicitly recognising uneven patterns of power and agency within UPU areas this is unlikely to transform many of the current limitations.

Section 1.1

Many future urban residents, predominantly in Africa and Asia, will be living in cities and peri-urban areas as yet unbuilt. The decisions made around urban food systems and urban development today lock in path dependencies that shape food security trajectories for future generations (Pieterse et al., 2018).

  • This is a key point which relates to governance processes and uneven participation in and influence on planning developments around food and urban spaces. Processes of ‘fairer futuring’ (Fitzgerald & Davies, 2022) are required.

Sec 1.3.2

The stability dimension in urban areas needs to extend beyond considering the stable supply of foods and stable food prices, to consider the broader challenges of instability of livelihoods and employment and political instability that are often associated with U-PU areas.

  • Also important to recognise climate instability and impacts of biodiversity loss on stability in relation to FSN

Agency is closely associated with the Right to Food.

  • This needs unpacking further to articulate how exactly agency is related to the Right to Food. This is unclear at present.

The proximity of urban and peri-urban residents to the local state provides opportunities to exercise agency in food systems governance

  • This is a substantial assumption made without reference to evidence. Proximity does not necessarily equate to the ability to exercise agency. Reference to evidence should be added to create a more robust argument here.

Within the U-PU FSN it is essential to consider sustainability beyond sustainable production, but to link it to sustainable consumption and examine how unsustainable practices across food systems, urban systems and related systems interact to shape FSN outcomes

  • This is essential in UPU areas but also beyond them
  • Explicit mention should be made here about matters of food waste and surplus food redistribution which reside outside production and consumption. Indeed, reference to circular food systems, regenerative production, reuse, food sharing would be beneficial here, recognising how they can support greater resilience in UPU areas.

Chapter 2

Important to mention intersectional inequalities

Chapter 3

Check referencing to Figures in this chapter e.g. 3.1 and 3.3

3.4.1

The use of the term “Food choice” can be problematic if it is reduced to the ABC model (attitudes lead to behaviours which ultimately lead to choices) of behaviour change.

More could be added around food culture to this section and to move beyond simple agency- structure dualism as this can be misinterpreted in particular with respect to relationality.

What about food sovereignty? While 90% of food is purchased in urban areas it is worth questioning whether more should be done to support growing within urban areas.

Worth referencing community/grassroot-led food initiatives such as those collated under urban food sharing initiatives by Davies (2019) in terms of fostering food resilience in UPU in terms of production, consumption, surplus food redistribution and food waste management. There is an example given termed ‘Self-help groups’ that ‘have been shown to provide food security resilience in rural India (Demont, 2022).

Chapter 4

4.3.1

Waste management should also be addressed with better coordination with food banks – although this approach has been frequently critiqued (e.g. Riches, 2018) the use of technological applications for data management, and the transformation of such waste into animal feed (UNEP DTU Partnership and United Nations Environment Programme, 2021; Latka et al., 2022; FAO, 2011).

  • Edible surplus food need not only be redistributed to ‘food banks’

Chapter 5

5.2

Power – what about power by inaction? This might be due to lack of will, resources for implementation, monitoring etc.

5.3.2

In fact, urban dwellers are often important partners, developing diverse activities as citizens which include for example participation in the development or implementation of urban food policies and the development of grass-root initiatives in the food realm from urban gardens to surplus food redistribution

  • This is an important point but there is no evidence provided to back it up. There are many publications illustrating this, albeit primarily examining higher income cities (Davies et al., 2017; Davies 2019)

5.4.3

…there remains insufficient evidence about whether these innovations make a difference and how. For example, both New York City and Brighton (UK) have been viewed as pioneers in urban food policy innovations and yet, their indicators on urban food security and nutrition have not substantially improved. This either suggests that such innovations have been divorced from other binding constraints to transforming urban food systems or that such innovations might not have had sufficient time to demonstrate impact. Learning from deviant cases—ones where the outcome contradicts the original expectation—is key to help advance thinking about whether and how multistakeholder and multi-sectoral approaches concretely affect food and nutrition outcomes

  • There is an assumption in this paragraph that a lack of evidence suggests a lack of impact. While this might be the case, it is impossible to know what their food security and nutrition rates would have been if those innovations hadn’t taken place. The existence of a policy council does not mean that the policy council is itself powerful within the governing architecture.

Chapter 6

6.2.2

…developing inclusive participatory processes that embed anticipatory governance into planning exercises

  • This is what to do, but actors /institutions need information on how to do this? See Fitzgerald and Davies (2022)

there is a need to understand better the different powers at play and how they can be leveraged to strengthen urban food systems and deliver food and nutrition security

  • Again an admirable principle but guidance on how to do this and how to leverage is needed

Just as important as the quality of public service is uneven strength and activities of civil society

  • This is important but not really reflected in preceding chapters. The document could do with more evidence around civil society activities around food e.g. (Davies, 2019)

…paramount to fund a dedicated food team

  • Again providing guidance on how to do this would be helpful in locations where they don’t exist and there’s no food policy council etc.

6.5.3

There are also self-organised and autonomous initiatives addressing inequalities and redistributing resources to strengthen urban and peri-urban food and nutrition security. These different forms of collective action can take many different forms and coalesce around a variety of projects, from seed swaps to community fridges or collective kitchens.

  • This statement deserves evidencing e.g. Marovelli (2019); Weymes and Davies (2019); Davies (2019); Davies et al (2022); Davies et al (2019); Morrow and Davies (2022)

6.5.6

Reference is made to behaviour change interventions but without evidence of impact being provided. These should be added. Also deserves some comment on the assumptions within these behaviour change interventions which predominantly lie in the information deficit model of change which has been demonstrated to have limited impact when focused on individuals and in the absence of consideration of wider factors affecting practices.

 

With compliments to HLPE-FSN team for drafting the complexity of urban and peri urban food system and food security in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, following points are offered:  

1. Conceptual framework

  • The food systems evolve and coexist with typologies of human settlements.  The urbanization is a continual process of human settlement transformation, taking place in diverse typologies of changes in dominant occupations, lifestyle, culture and behavior, and thus altering the demographic and social structure of both urban and rural areas (World Urbanization Prospects:  United Nations, 2018), and the food system transformation is corollary to it. This phenomenon of demographic shift, primarily triggered by combinations of social and economic pull and push factors at different period of time; leaves options and / or choice for the people to adjust in lifestyle, including food.  A small section on this process can be considered.

3.  trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report

  • The challenges and opportunities for the food security with sustainable food system (Table 4.1) may not be generalized for urbanization per say but may be contextual to corresponding distinct food systems and individuals. The territorial markets may be less relevant to food importing countries, where trade assumes greater significance. Similarly, the single member working population, a pronounced urban phenomenon, would depend on different food system than normal households.
  • The quest to enhance resilience of food security in urban context may anchor on positives of efficient market and supply chains, higher literacy and awareness, better social services and convenience of public interventions and distress mitigation, that get easily harnessed in urban food system. In some respect, the rural transformation is more guided by urban transformation and not vice versa, particularly in conditions of promotion of rural non farm employment, commercial farming and market oriented economy, seeking parity with urban lifestyle.
  • The context of modern and traditional channels in retail sector (Fig 4.2) possibly has got disrupted due to spurt in digital payment system during COVID   and rapidly increasing digital connectivity across the continents. Now the analytical studies on household spending using digital payments reflect emerging trends of consumer behavior. The solutions for resilience of food security may possibly also account these trends and technological currents, getting stronger in coming future.

Rajiv Mehta, Senior Statistician, FAO, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dear HLPE-FSN team,

Congratulations on this first draft. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please see the comments from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries below. 

Regarding p3, “focuses on the production of staples, on large scale production, on reliance on imports of cheap staples, on the marginalization of small scale and informal actors,” these situations can also be seen in developed countries, where food self-sufficiency rate is low, in addition, the rural economy is declining and reducing and aging population is advancing. In order to develop whole national land in well balanced manner, it is necessary to utilize domestic agricultural resources and focus on sustainable and productive agriculture, considering using various types of innovation.

Congratulations on a very good and detailed zero draft. The following comments are on behalf of the RUAF Global Partnership on Sustainable Urban Agriculture and Food Systems.

In response to Q1s and Q2 (conceptual framework and dimensions of food security) 

  1. We find the conceptual framework and broader definition of FSN to be very useful and effective. However, as is rightly asked, the practical guidance of working with all elements, system principles and directions will require a lot of effort and good examples. This includes references to existing work of cities (MUFPP), on multi actor initiatives (councils, food labs), existing depositories (including RUAF, FoodActionCities, etc.).

     
  2. Others have noted that the report is very SDG2 centric. While this is understandable given the CFS brief, it should be clear that FSN is the end-game and other outcomes of the food system – such as economic development and livelihoods, and climate resilience – ultimately impact FSN. As such, it is important for policy makers to carefully examine all potential trade-offs of a proposed intervention. For example, it is rightly stated to extend the right to food to other rights, including the right to City. This links directly to SDG 11, and others. Another example, an initiative to control food prices to support access to affordable food supports FSN for some, but may also impact the livelihood of some other actors, meaning they are more likely to experience poverty and food insecurity. Box 6.1 may be a good place to include this. 

In response to Q3 (trends, variables, elements, issues): 

  1. There is considerable attention to ‘foodsheds’, yet this is a rather outmoded conceptualisation that represents cities as having an extractive relationship with surrounding rural areas that provide their food needs. More recent approaches to territorialisation and city region food systems understand that urban areas are embedded in their geographical and regional context, and there are multi-directional flows of people, goods, services, economic value and eco-systems services across the urban-rural continuum. This is important for ensuring that urban food systems both help meet the food needs of urban areas and promote rural development, including development of food system activities in smaller towns and secondary cities in the vicinity of a larger urban areas, and serving as a multifunctional level for change (as well as supporting FSN).  



    As well as, or instead of, the figure showing overlapping foodsheds, it may be useful to depict various different forms of ‘city region’, which ‘not only refers to megacities and the immediate rural and agricultural areas surrounding them, but also to small and medium-sized towns that link remote small-scale producers and their agricultural value chains to urban centres and markets. City regions can also be defined as a network of towns that collaborate within a territory over economic, social or environmental assets, interests and issues.’ (FAO, 2023, p. 5 – includes helpful diagram). The diversity of different types/characters of food territories around cities and towns of all sizes and configurations stands opposed to the apparent critique of various programmes that support territorialisation (the City Region Food System Programme, the Urban Food Agenda, the Green Cities Initiative) as a ‘normative notion of a localised foodshed’ (p. 63). 



    Moreover, highlighting the localisation priority of the foodshed concept, whilst citing it as the inspiration behind other (more evolved) conceptualisations of territorialisation, risks tarring them all with a brush of ‘defensive localism’. For the city region food system approach, this is explicitly not the intention: 



    ‘At its root, a city region food system approach proposes that we should work to strengthen and improve the quality of the connections between urban areas and their rural hinterlands and between consumers and nearby food producers, in order to realise a suite of social, economic and environmental benefits. However, it is not a case of unquestioning localism. Rather, it is about creating a framework for conscious food governance that takes territoriality into account, recognising that cities exist within a specific geography and that decisions about food operate across an urban-rural continuum. It recognises the central role of the private sector in the food system, but is based on the understanding that public goods will not be delivered by market forces alone, and that greater transparency and democratic participation are prerequisites. (Jennings et al. 2015: 28)

     
  2. The inclusion of gender is very welcome (p. 26 and p68). It would be helpful to acknowledge that people of all genders can be impacted by gender-related inequalities – for example, men and boys may face inequalities in areas like educational attainment, dropout rates, criminal activities, violence, and employment. Men and boys are also critical to addressing gender issues facing women in the food system  through a whole society approach to addressing cultural norms.



    On p. 26, the discussion of gender is followed by a paragraph on intersectionality. It would be helpful to link these explicitly, to show that the lived experiences of people of different genders are impacted by other factors constituting their identity (e.g. race, class, ethnicity, education, etc). Please see RUAF, 2020. 

     
  3. There is no mention of the role of youth in urban food systems. As expressed in HLPE Report no. 16, 2021, it is imperative that initiatives to strengthen urban food systems actively engage youth, with young people playing a leadership role. This includes enabling youth participation in urban food systems governance, demonstrating economic opportunities for young people throughout the food system (where perceptions, particularly of farming, are negative), and addressing narratives that shape consumption preferences that favour ultra processed, ‘fast’ food and shun traditional diets. Failure to engage young people in the food system will have significant impacts on FSN in the future, with ageing farming populations and migration of  youth to cities in search of non-farming livelihoods – alongside rapidly growing urban populations requiring food. 

     
  4. The HLPE-FSN 0-draft Report does not cover at all or adequately cover the following topics related to UPA: 



    It does not cover Circular Economy and safe wastewater reuse in urban and peri-urban areas. If you search for wastewater in the doc, almost all the hits are in the reference section. UPA thrives on resources that can be easily recovered in safe ways to close multiple nutrient and water loops.



    It does not adequately cover issues around food safety of UPA products. There is a section/subsection 4.5.1.2 on Food Safety concerns but the section can be expanded to cover all aspects of safety concerns.



    Issues on food nutrition come with quality of UPA products at harvest and post-harvest. This means that urban and peri – urban areas’ capacity to store products to maintain nutritional value/quality is of utmost importance. This must be addressed as urbanisation increases and cities become bigger.

     
  5. With regard to embedding food strategies and overcoming electoral change, the paragraph on page 79 suggests that, if the right lessons are learned, ‘backtracking’ following political shifts can be avoided. This may be so, but there are also examples where food systems work has been embedded into the municipality for decades, yet still is disrupted by political change. Toronto is a clear example. 

     
  6. Warnings against uncritically importing food systems work from the Global North to the Global South due to contextual specificities are very important (p. 83). It would be helpful to go further and note that direct transfer between contexts – often also between two cities in the Global North – is not always possible because of different context and governance conditions. Thus, deep understanding of context is vital, as well as what can be done, and how to adapt examples from elsewhere. 

In response to question 5 (case studies)

The zero draft already contains a lot of useful case studies, drawing on existing repositories. However, we note that some are out of date, or the situation has moved on. An example is Bristol, where the food policy council no longer meets but the food governance continues through other platforms (Joy Carey can provide more details on this). 

Rather than a general request for more case studies, which may quickly become overwhelming,  it may be helpful to identify precise areas where examples are needed. 

Other 

The language of the report is highly academic. Care should be taken to ensure it is accessible to the target readership, who are unlikely to be food system experts. In the same vein, the institutional enablers and the policy instruments must set out a very clear ask. They currently feel tagged on to a rather academic report, and while they give valuable – if brief – suggestions of what many help, readers may be left wondering how to go about it / where to start. An expanded ‘how’ section could be helpful, or supplementary accessible and practical guidance.  

References: 

FAO. 2023. Building sustainable and resilient city region food systems--Assessment and planning handbook. Rome. https:// doi.org/10.4060/cc5184en

Jennings, S., Cottee, J., Curtis, T. and Miller, S. (2015), Food in an Urbanised World: The Role of City Region Food Systems in Resilience and Sustainable Development (research report), Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, https://www.alnap.org/help-library/ food-in-an-urbanised-world-the-role-of-city-region-food-systems-in-resilience-and 

RUAF, 2020. Gender in Urban Food Systems, Urban Agriculture Magazine #37, July 2020. Urban Agriculture Magazine no. 37 – Gender in Urban Food Systems – RUAF Urban Agriculture and Food Systems

 

السيد Julio Prudencio

Investigador independiente afiliado a la Fundación TIERRA y al Instituto de Investigaciones Socioeconómicas de la Universidad Católica de Bolivia
بوليفيا دولة) المتعددة (القوميات

1. Respecto a la Concepción:

Hay que adoptar una perspectiva territorial (Inclusive transfronteriza, entre países) en la que el Medio Ambiente desempeñe un papel clave tanto para las áreas urbanas/ciudades como para las rurales.

2. Respecto a las dimensiones de la seguridad alimentaria.

Para mí, han incorporado un enfoque nuevo que no tiene un justificativo apropiado. Habría que trabajar y justificar más profundamente en lo ya establecido hace tiempo; y que los actores del desarrollo utilicen esos enfoques, y no aumentarles/presionarlos para que adopten nuevos enfoques.

3. Cuestiones que merecen más atención en el borrador del Informe:

. Plantear aspectos específicos para que el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación Adecuada sea cumplido por todos los países, estableciendo sanciones para el país que no cumpla con ese Derecho.

Hay países que han firmado el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación, pero no lo cumplen. Inclusive, políticamente han tomado la decisión de sitiar/cercar (2 veces) ciudades capitales importantes, para que su población no reciba alimentos, para que la población no se abastezca, violando así el DHA .

. La biodiversidad, que es la base de los alimentos, fundamental en la seguridad alimentaria. La biodiversidad no es valorada en su verdadera dimensión por lo que el Informe debe prestar mayor atención a ésta, y plantear más recomendaciones.

. La creciente desigualdad socioeconómica que cada vez se amplía más y más en todas las poblaciones (urbanas e inclusive rurales), lo que determina una demanda y consumo diferente de alimentos, siendo desplazados los alimentos tradicionales ricos en calorías y proteínas por los alimentos precocidos, los fritos, las gaseosas y otros.

. El cambio climático es fundamental de abordarlo desde la perspectiva del desarrollo sostenible, de la seguridad alimentaria nutricional, del resguardo de la biodiversidad.

Por eso, los modelos de desarrollo de fomento a las exportaciones de productos agrícolas (soya, caña de azúcar, etc), por ampliar la frontera agrícola para el fomento de esas exportaciones, están deforestando, quemando la amazonía, matando la biodiversidad, y fomentando el monocultivo y no la diversificación productiva. Ese modelo de fomento a las exportaciones es extractivo y debe ser parado por el logro de una seguridad alimentaria nutricional, diversificada, con alimentos sanos, con soberanía.

. Hace años que se plantea la Agricultura Urbana como una alternativa más para abastecer de alimentos a las poblaciones urbanas, pero las políticas públicas no han dado el apoyo suficiente en términos de decisión política y apoyo económico; y menos atención aún en términos de capacitación, supervisión, semillas, etc.

. En el Informe borrador no hay suficiente atención a las Estrategias de Sobrevivencia alimentaria que las poblaciones urbanas de escasos recursos implementan, como el intercambio de productos procesados (urbanos como el aceite) con los productos de consumo directo (papa, oca, etc) que poseen sus familiares en el sector rural; ni tampoco la asistencia en los comedores populares, la participación de mujeres en organizaciones sociopolíticas para obtener alimentos; ni los subsidios alimentarios (prestaciones sociales) entre otros.

As a food  microbiologist , I commend the HLPE-FSN for their comprehensive approach towards addressing urban and peri-urban food systems in the context of urbanization and rural transformation. The V0 draft presents a thoughtful conceptual framework, but there are areas where further refinement and inclusion of specific elements could enhance its effectiveness.

1. Conceptual Framework Effectiveness: The framework effectively highlights key issues, yet it could benefit from a stronger emphasis on the role of microbiology in ensuring food safety and quality. This aspect is crucial in urban settings where food supply chains are longer and more complex.

2. Trends/Variables/Elements in Urban Food Systems: While the draft addresses many key elements, it may underrepresent the significance of emerging food technologies like  vertical farming. These technologies are particularly relevant for space-constrained urban areas and can contribute significantly to sustainability and food security.

3. Additional Data: The draft could benefit from more case studies focusing on the microbiological aspects of food safety in urban settings. Quantitative data on foodborne illnesses and the effectiveness of various food safety protocols in urban areas would be valuable.

4. Redundant Facts or Statements:It's important to streamline the content to avoid redundancy, especially in the sections discussing general principles of food security which might already be well understood by the target audience.

5. Case Studies and Success Stories: The inclusion of success stories from cities that have effectively integrated microbiological techniques in food safety management would be beneficial. For example, cities that have employed innovative waste recycling methods or urban farming practices that utilize beneficial microbes for improved yield and sustainability.

Overall, the V0 draft is a strong starting point, but incorporating more specific examples and data related to the microbiological aspects of food security in urban settings would make the recommendations more robust and actionable

Please see the comments from the Institute of Food Technologists. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Dear HLPE-FSN,

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation.” IFT is a global organization of approximately 12,000 individual members, in 95 countries, who are committed to advancing the science of food. We believe that science is essential to ensuring that our global food system is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. For this reason, we are encouraged to see this report addressing food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban areas.

In reviewing the V0 draft, IFT is encouraged to see the emphasis on food safety, as well as affordability and accessibility to nutritious foods. We further recommend a deeper look at how food science & technology can be part of the solution in achieving food and nutrition security in urban and peri-urban settings. As an example, food science and technology has made significant contributions in increasing the availability of food around the world through packaging and processing technologies that allow foods to be safe and stable for longer periods of time. The report acknowledges food processing can improve food safety, and consumers recognize this, but this is primarily positioned as a disadvantage for healthy diets as it is assumed all processed foods are of poorer nutritional quality than fresh foods. However, this is not always the case as there are many processed foods that provide important nutrition, particularly for urban and peri-urban populations who struggle with “time poverty” as noted in the report. IFT encourages the HLPE to take a more balanced view of the role of processed foods in enabling food and nutrition security and identify the strengths that should be built on while examining how to overcome identified weaknesses. Several recent publications (provided in the reference

section) provide additional information and case studies on how sustainable production of nutritious foods with processing technology can help improve food and nutrition security around the globe. We suggest a recommendation for more investments from the public and private sectors in research and development of technologies to make food safe with a focus on preserving nutrient content by minimizing the use of heat, chemicals, or water and reducing food components/nutrients to limit (e.g., saturated fat, added sugars, sodium). This would improve food safety, nutritional value, and sustainability.

Also, although fresh foods from informal markets are identified as the major source of foodborne disease, particularly in children, we agree that the responsibility for food safety extends beyond the vendors to all of the food system. For example, environmental contaminants, which are more frequently found in fresh foods in LMICs, are frequently a result of inadequate agricultural practices, such as the use of contaminated water. Thus, a multisector approach, including downstream and upstream players in the food system must be taken to ensure food safety.

We would also like to bring to the attention of the HLPE a case study from Chicago that is designed to bring affordable fresh produce to urban institutional settings, such as schools, health clinics, and community centers. The Fresh Moves Mobile Market is a win-win for urban farmers and low-income inner-city residents with limited access to fresh produce. The Urban Grower’s Collective converted a bus into a mobile farmer’s market that included fresh produce and some pantry staples, such as pasta, beans, coffee, and bread. The bus transports produce grown by urban farmers into areas of Chicago with limited access to fresh foods. The food is priced affordably and provides a fair price for the farmers. Examples such as this could help address the transportation issues noted throughout the report by bringing the foods to the areas of greatest need as well as provide a means of income for urban farmers.

IFT believes the science of food and application of technology are important for transforming the food system to ensure food and nutrition security for all. Food scientists and technologists share a commitment with the HLPE-FSN and the CFS to improve nutrition and food security globally. We hope the HLPE will consider our comments to continue to support investment and advances in food science & technology to improve food and nutrition security for all. Please contact Anna Rosales, Senior Director Government Affairs and Nutrition ([email protected]) if IFT may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Anna Rosales

Senior Director Nutrition and Government Affairs, Institute of Food Technologists

References:

Knorr, D. (2024). Food processing: Legacy, significance, and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 104270.

Institute of Food Technologists. (2023). Sustainable Production of Nutritious Foods Through Processing Technology. https://www.ift.org/-/media/policy-advocacy/files/ift_spi_white-paper_processed- foods_1023.pdf

Lillford, P., & Hermansson, A. M. (2021). Global missions and the critical needs of food science and technology. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 111, 800-811.

McClements, D. J., Barrangou, R., Hill, C., Kokini, J. L., Lila, M. A., Meyer, A. S., & Yu, L. (2021). Building a resilient, sustainable, and healthier food supply through innovation and technology. Annual review of food science and technology, 12, 1-28.

Knorr, D., Augustin, M. A., & Tiwari, B. (2020). Advancing the role of food processing for improved integration in sustainable food chains. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 34.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Science Breakthroughs

to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25059.

Emily Olsson

University of Oxford
الولايات المتحدة الأمريكيّة

Congratulations to the team on a detailed report that presents the core concepts, framework and pathways to change with clarity and coherence. My comments on the zero draft can be found below. 

Thank you and all the best,

Emily

1. The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020).

  • Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?
  • Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?
  • Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?

The conceptual framework provides a clear way of thinking about urban food systems and the myriad of challenges and complexities that they face. However, the report doesn’t push it much further than that, making it difficult for a practitioner to operationalize, especially because the report emphasizes the heterogeneity of urban food systems. In order to bridge the gap, it might be useful to consider including: (i) indicators for practitioners to use to measure and monitor a food system or designing a project intervention; or (ii) a handbook of sorts (similar to ICLEIs) of which stakeholders to involve, what methods should be used to contextualize an urban food system, etc.; or (iii) a way in which policymakers and practitioners could prioritize investments and project interventions. Another possibility could be to include a compendium of case studies from which practitioners and policymakers could draw inspiration (similar to the FAO CSA Handbook).

2. The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability.

  • Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in urban and peri-urban food systems?

The report doesn’t delve as deep into the unique environmental aspects of urban food production, which weakens the argument for the inclusion of the ‘sustainability’ dimension. The authors could consider including more details on how urban crop and livestock production (through traditional means and newer technological ones) affect the local environment in terms of soil health, water quality, biodiversity, energy use and fertilizers/compost. Might be useful to consider a section on urban forests, as well. The inclusion of this information would help to strengthen the sustainability dimension.

The report has a lot of rich information on urban nutrition outcomes, but it doesn’t seem linked to the food security outcomes; they come across as separate rather than interlinked. Certain elements of urban food security could be covered in more detail, particularly market dependence/reliance and transport needs (and associated fuel costs). It would also be interesting to include (if available) more information on chronic vs acute food insecurity in urban centers in the Global South. Are there likely to be more food crises located in urban centers in the future? How will conflict affect food security outcomes in urban areas? It may be worth reaching out to colleagues in FSIN (based in WFP) and IPC (based in FAO) on this because they may have data on previous and/or current food crises in cities, such as the ongoing one in Port-au-Prince.

3. Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered?

  • Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report?
  • Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?

See previous answers and in addition, the information presented on the spatial elements of urban food systems is important, but it could be teased out more in the report by discussing in more depth the historical lack of connection between urban planning and food system outcomes, as well as including recommendations for urban planners (as one of the practitioner groups). Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999 & 2000) could me two useful sources.

4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?

  • Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?

I’m currently working on two articles – one is scoping review of circularity in urban food systems in the Global North and Global South, and the other is a framework for circularity in urban food systems. They may be useful in extending some of the arguments made in the report and would be happy to discuss further. However, I’m not sure if the publication timelines will align, as my articles won’t be published until later in 2024. I’m also conducting research on circularity in Medellin’s food system in the early spring of 2024 (in collaboration with the FAO in Colombia), and the results from that may make for a useful case study to include in the report.

5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?

6. Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:

  • evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;
  • efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;
  • efforts made to enhance the right to food in urban and peri-urban settings;
  • examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production; and
  • examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems.

In response to question 6a) evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;

Part 1 of Joe Studwells' book "How Asia Works" describes the policy decisions that China and other Asian countries implemented to solve their food security problem. The policies that Deng Xiaoping implemented to solve China's food security crisis are described here. https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat2/sub7/item347.html

The World Food Program;s contribution to solving the food security problem in China is described here https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-11-07/A-look-back-to-the-1980s-China-s-…

 

Astrid Epp

Permanent Representation of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN Organizations in Rome
Italy

Dear colleagues,

Please find the comments to the report attached from the Permanent Representation of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN Organizations in Rome.

Astrid Epp

Alternate Permanent Representative

General remarks:

  • We thank the CFS and HLPE for submitting the V0 draft of the report “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the con- text of urbanization and rural transformation” and for the possibility to provide input at an early stage.
  • We welcome that the CFS addresses the important issue of urban and peri-urban food systems, which is and will be increasingly a highly relevant topic and is deeply inter- connected with the inequality workstream. In our view, it would be valuable to create topical synergies between these two workstreams.
  • As urbanization grows, it is essential to introduce human rights-based policies which addresses not only the availability and accessibility of food but cover also other rele- vant aspects, e.g. as nutritional balance and the cross-cutting issues of food safety, climate and biodiversity protection, to promote the transformation to sustainable and resilient food systems. This is all the more true against the background of multiple crises and conflicts to which urban and peri-urban food systems are particularly vul- nerable.
  • The multi-stakeholder and multi-level approaches should therefore always also re- flect the rural character and the production side.
  • Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the Global Forum for Food and Agri- culture 2016 with the special focus on urbanization: GFFA_Kommu- nique_2016_EN.pdf (gffa-berlin.de)

 

Remarks on individual chapters of the Report

In our view, the chapters are well chosen and reflect adequately and effectively the focus areas of urban and peri-urban food systems. They provide the key facts and sound analysis. We would like to make the following suggestions:

Chapter 4:

  • chapter 4 should be enriched with forest and forestry issues: In addition to the di- verse tree fruits for nutrition, aspects such as the positive environmental impacts of trees and forests for food systems (water retention, cooling, soil protection, etc.) as well as extended nutritional contributions (foliage as animal feed, wood/charcoal as an energy source for food preparation, etc.) should be men-tioned. A reference to corresponding FAO resolutions in the Forestry and Agricul- ture Committees to consider sustainable food systems and agroforestry more closely together in future could be added. Finally, peri-urban forest and tree- based food systems can serve to reduce the pressure of destruction on the still in- tact forests in areas further away from the city. Reference should be made to past discussions on the topic of food and forestry in the CFS.
  • In Chapter 4.6.3., especially consumer food waste is highlighted. We suggest to take into account that consumer food waste refers to household food waste and food waste generated in the out-of-home catering (such as restaurants and com- munal catering like schools and canteens). The causes why food waste arises are complex and diverse. They (and suitable food waste reduction measures) differ between both sectors. You also might bear in mind that other sectors’ actions generate food waste in urban and peri-urban food systems ande have an impact on consumer food waste.
  • chapter 4.6.4.: we would like to highlight not only particular points of vulnerabil- ity in food systems but also potential leverage points as well as develop ap- proaches to enhance the systems’ resilience. See proposed wording p.68
  • we would also like to highlight biodiversity-related aspects in this chapter. See proposed wording incl. references, p.59, p.62, p.68.

case studies/success stories:

a) evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food sys- tems with the principles behind what made the process work

 

  • The German "AgroBioNet" project investigated how rural regions and companies can be economically successful with food from special or endangered varieties and breeds. They analyzed 21 practical examples, identified success factors and derived recommendations that can be transferred to similar projects (eg. supermarkets who offer meat products from traditional and neglected breeds in the respective region of origin together with traders and farmers). The case studies, success factors and rec- ommendations are presented in the final brochure "Value creation with old varieties and old breeds" efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food sys- tems;
  • Concept of solidarity-based farming where food is no longer sold on the market, but flows into its own transparent economic cycle, which is co-organized and financed by the consumers. Specifically, this is an association of farms or markets with a group of private households. Based on the estimated annual costs of agricultural production, this group undertakes to pay a fixed (usually monthly) amount to the farm each year in advance. This enables the producers to devote themselves to good agricultural practice, to keep the soil fertile and to farm in line with demand, independently of market constraints.In return, the buyers receive the entire harvest and (if the farm produces it) processed products such as bread, cheese etc.. The personal relationship makes people aware of their mutual responsibility. Website (unfortunately, only available in German: https://www.solidarische-landwirtschaft.org/das-konzept/was- ist-solawi).
  • Initiatives for a stronger “city-rural area-dialogue”, as e.g. food policy councils in many cities, which, starting from the urban centres, seek connections to the sur- rounding peri-urban producers.
  • Project “edible cities” as a nature-based solution: https://www.ioer.de/en/pro- jects/edible-cities

d) examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production

e) examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems

  • In many German States (Bundesländer), so-called organic model regions (Ökoland- bau-Modellregion) were funded. These can be mergers of city and district, several municipalities, but also individual districts. The aim of all organic model regions is to increase the proportion of organic land on the one hand and to be able to offer con- sumers more regional organic products on the other. The combination of regional added value and organic production is intended to increase the attractiveness and sustainability of rural areas.