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)
- 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.).
- 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):
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Dr. Jess Halliday