Dear HLPE - FSN Team
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this report. This report provides a much needed critique and synthesis of urban, peri-urban (UPU) and rural food system elements s and relationships. Policy makers and development practitioners from a diversity of fields will find this report a key ''go to'' reference. As is the function of HLPE - FSN reports and given the complexity of the topic, the report brings together, in a succinct and coherent narrative, evidence of the character of UPU food systems across planning, policy instruments and institutional enablers including budgets, environment, nutrition, multi-level and scale governance, mobiilsing local agency and many more dimensions with address of cross cutting considerations e.g. inclusion and equity. Particular recognition of the experiences and vital role the informal food sector plays especially for low-income communities in urban areas who are the most vulnerable to all forms of malnutrition re: livelihoods, food safety, access and availability as well as informal - formal food systems relationships (e.g. Table 4.1) is acknowledged and much needed. This is also a push-pull systems opportunity between rural landscapes, communities and UPU spaces and one that as multiple transformative levers, local agency and resilience potential. Attached please find my responses to the questions posed by the HLPE-FSN team
Kind Regards, Dr Annie Trevenen-Jones
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?
- As part of the HLPE report series the conceptual framework continues to be a reference point. The previous additions of agency (empowerment) and sustainable (regenerative) are valued and addressed through-out this report. Even so more needs to be said with regards to agency and sustainable.
- Agency. The report would benefit from further explicit address in terms of how this is part of context specific engagements with different actors and scales of interaction and territories, local ownership, indigenous community perspectives and unpacking ‘’empowerment’’. While well intentioned, ‘’empowerment’’ in the field ranges from top down training approaches to advocacy and mobilisation through capacitation workshops and tools to the innovative, more inclusive and respectful co-design approaches (linked to community based participation approaches and Design Thinking).
- Sustainable. Would be valuable to further elaborate on how this connects with inclusion, equitability and just food systems transformation as well as socio-ecological systems resilience. Regenerative is mentioned in the report - albeit this should be broadly conceptualised as many working in food systems have specific preferences for regenerative vs agro-ecological vs sustainable agriculture etc. The connecting link between different preferences being grounded in principles.
- This report provides a much needed critique and synthesis of urban, peri-urban (UPU) and rural food system elements s and relationships. Policy makers and development practitioners from a diversity of fields will find this report a key ''go to'' reference. As is the function of HLPE - FSN reports and given the complexity of the topic, the report brings together, in a succinct and coherent narrative, evidence of the character of UPU food systems across planning, policy instruments and institutional enablers including budgets, environment, nutrition, multi-level and scale governance, mobilising local agency and many more dimensions with address of cross cutting considerations e.g. inclusion and equity.
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?
- Actors: The explicit choice of ''actors'' rather than stakeholders re: terminology and concept, offers clarity and guidance for many of us working in food systems who often grapple as to which term/concept to use - with many competing arguments for both.
- Defining Urban: Address of the on-going challenge re: universal definition of urban was a fundamental section in this report offers a valuable platform for further discussions on how best to approach what is ''urban''? vs ''what isnt and why?''. The supporting diagrams (Fig. 1.2 and 1.3) will likely be resourced by many going forward.
- Push and Pull factors: Reporting on push and pull factors re: urbanization highlights a valuable transformative perspective which organizations like the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) who are working with communities, governments and multiple sectors in the rural and UPU space have adopted as a consequence of learnings around food systems re: availability and access of diverse, sufficient, safe, and nutritious foods during the COVID-19 pandemic. This also offers opportunity for public and private sector, communities, development organizations and researchers to explore and engage re: connecting rural and UPU food systems in diverse, innovative ways that are co-beneficial and enhance systems resilience. This also links to the UN-Habitat rural-urban framework, systems thinking, and circular ‘’zero waste’’ models.
- Secondary and Mega Cities: Mention in the report of the valuable role secondary cities can and do play through their proximity and more intimate food systems relationships with rural landscapes and communities is noted. Possibly more could be said on secondary cities with respect to push and pull opportunities including between secondary cities and larger mega cities. This additional link is important given that most mega cities of the future will be located in the Global South esp. SSA and Southern and Southeast Asia – regions which also experience the highest moderate to severe food insecurity and multiple nutrition challenges (SOFI 2023 report).
- Gender: is mentioned in the report and has a separate sub-section. Even so, through-out the report, more could have been said about gender from different barriers experienced in the food system and in different UPU contexts, inclusion of women to influencing agenda and granular perspectives re: men and women.
- City Networks and Consortia: The report mentions the role of city networks and agreements like the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, C40, ICLEI etc and overarching consortia like the UNFSS Coalition on Sustainable and Inclusive Urban Food Systems re: urban governance and food systems. Perhaps a table contrasting these networks and consortia re: approaches etc would be useful. Additionally the value add of Coalitions like the aforementioned one is the endevour to facilitate engagement and shared experiences/learnings/tools between national and local-city governments with the aim of a)enhancing coherent, coordinated food systems governance across sectors and regions; and b) advocate and influence national and global food systems and nutrition fora regards the critical role of cities in food systems transformation as well as impact spanning availability and access to safe, healthy diets as well as livelihoods, public health, biodiversity, fresh water, land use, climate change etc.
- Blue food systems: There has been a tendency, globally, to preference agri-food systems and it is appreciated that this report provides several references to blue-food systems.
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?
The report attempts to provide a few case studies with qualitative insights which adds value. The extent to which the report can provide further quantitative - qualitative data is a matter of balance, HLPE criterion and volume constraints of the report.
- Accessibility: It is worth noting that a lot of data and evidence is ‘’locked into’’ hard copy and online reports, technical databases, academic papers and multi-media including videos and which do not lend themselves to easy, convenient access to those in the public sector, communities and other active agents of change. Language constraints further hamper this.
- Innovative resources like FoodActionCities (GAIN, RUAF, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact) www.foodactioncities.org - unlock UPU information including learnings and sharing of tools and practices to decision makers across the world via mobile phones and computers with accessibility for new and older operating systems, is open to cities and other actors including city networks to easily submit content and promotes just food systems transformation.
- Food Systems Dashboard (John Hopkins University, GAIN, FAO, Columbia Climate School and CornellCALS ) -https://www.foodsystemsdashboard.org - is a quantitative and useful tool albeit providing aggregated national and global food systems data and policy options. Sub-national food systems dashboards are presently in development in several SSA and Asian countries that provide disaggregated and more granular systems data. Even so, it is important to recognize the political dimension of data when compiling open source dashboards that are widely accessible.
- City and UPU food systems data: this is unique and vital but lacking. It often has different formal and informal data forms (of which less if known about the informal food sector) which are administratively gathered and/or quickly aggregated into higher administrative quantifications and lost in terms of access to inform local decision making. Even less is known about rural – UPU systems data.
5.
- Importance of narrative local cultural food stories including that about gender and indigenous socio-ecological food systems knowledge.
Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft? Nothing to add.
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.
GAIN’s policy option toolkits and collaborative approaches, engaging government and traditional/informal food market actors in Mozambique, Kenya and Pakistan as part of COVID-19 and building back better responses could be of interest. See: https://www.gainhealth.org/resources/reports-and-publications/policy-options-toolkits Notably this work had moved on with further development and in places (including scaling) interventions to helps national and city governments (and parts of the informal food sector) implement countries UNFSS pathway commitments.
Dr. Ann Trevenen-Jones