Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Consultation

Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation

The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) produces the report “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation”, at the request of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). The HLPE-FSN report will be presented at the 52nd plenary session of the CFS in October 2024.

With this e-consultation, the HLPE-FSN is seeking your feedback on the proposed scope of this report and the guiding questions below.

SCOPE AND RATIONALE

Almost sixty percent of the global population is currently living in urban centres (UNDESA, 2018; Acharya et al., 2020). These centres are widely seen as engines of growth and employment, producing over 80 percent of the global GDP, but also facing huge challenges in guaranteeing access for all residents to essential services such as health, education, transportation and food (Ibid.). Urban populations are rapidly increasing, with a growth curve particularly sharp in Africa and Asia. The fifteen fastest-growing cities in the world, for example, are in Africa. Alongside urbanization, there has been a “geographical decoupling” (Langemeyer et al., 2021) of cities from sources of food supply, with urban and peri-urban land use being reoriented for “more profitable” uses. As such, cities and towns are fast losing peri-urban agricultural lands, which have historically provided them with fresh and healthy food. Urban areas are also experiencing higher rates of extreme weather events that affect people’s livelihoods and incomes, while inequalities among urban populations are growing (Pelling et al., 2021). These trends mean that urban and peri-urban areas also concentrate risks for food insecurity and malnutrition, which became clear during the COVID-19 pandemic (see for example Rede PENSSAN, 2021), exacerbated by natural disasters and conflicts. At the same time, urban and peri-urban areas are resourceful, serving as hubs for education, technology and innovation, health and social services as well as for food production, processing and distribution, all roles that could be enhanced.

Often, in impoverished urban areas, informal economic and market relationships in food systems can be critical for food security, but suffer from policy and regulatory neglect. Informal food systems comprise a complex network of suppliers, transporters, hawkers, retailers and street and market food vendors, in addition to farmers, and contribute to making food more accessible and affordable to urban consumers. Yet, these informal sector actors mainly rely on their own resources and capital and have very little policy support for strengthening their enterprises and ensuring quality, such as support for access to market intelligence, transport and logistics, cold chains or waste reuse facilities (Tefft et al., 2017). In fact, in the absence of specific food system planning, the sale and consumption of highly processed foods is growing in most urban centres, while local commerce offering healthy, fresh food at affordable prices, and often in smaller quantities, is neglected, contributing to the so-called “food deserts”. These trends typically have negative impacts on food security and nutrition (Peyton, Moseley and Battersby, 2015; Battersby, 2017; Acharya et al., 2020).

This policy incoherence insists on a general lack of coordination between policies and actors concerned with food security, agriculture, environment, etc., and urban planning, and it is exacerbated by the general dearth of city-level data, analyses and empirical evidence to inform decision-making on urban and peri-urban food policy. As such, it is difficult for policymakers to plan, prioritize, design and track urban and peri-urban food system interventions and ensure coherence across policies and sectors. Furthermore, governments and other organs like famine early warning systems (FEWS) have also not been as good at monitoring food insecurity in urban areas as they have been in rural areas, beyond very basic indicators such as food prices (Moseley, 2001; Krishnamurthy, Choularton and Kareiva, 2020).

Cities can play a vital role in shaping food system policies to bolster their resilience in several ways. They can source locally or regeneratively grown food where appropriate, facilitate sustainable urban and peri-urban production of nutritious food, avoid food waste by strengthening investments in circular bio-economy (broadly defined as an economy based on the sustainable use, re-use and regeneration of natural resources), build inclusive food markets by investing in infrastructure for smaller scale traders and retailers to market healthier food products. They can also play a role in promoting resilience by mitigating and adapting against the adverse impacts of climate change (HLPE, 2020; Heck and Alonso, 2021).

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is an important option with potentially positive impacts on dietary diversity, the quality of city spaces, and community action and empowerment. Yet, in most cities, especially in the Global South, there is little state support for urban and peri-urban agriculture. Instead, current regulations in cities and the rising market value of peri-urban land limit opportunities for local production. A recent FAO survey indicates that municipal governments play an enormous role in identifying and connecting food system actors to foster innovative community-based initiatives to support food security and nutrition (FAO, 2020). In the face of the dramatic consequences of the pandemic, for example, home gardens provided nutritious and healthy food supplements and ecosystem services (Lal, 2020). Local markets multiplied, as did initiatives by family producers for home delivery of baskets of fresh food and initiatives for food donations to low-income communities. Many people in urban areas, especially new migrants, undocumented people and informal workers, were forced to go to food banks and charities, with great harm to their dignity and agency (Rao et al., 2020). These experiences point to the importance and potential of the territorial dimension of food systems for the realization of the human right to food (Recine et al., 2021).

Given the social and economic significance of urban areas, it is imperative to address the challenges of urbanization in relation to rural transformation to “build back better” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions to supply chains caused by the war in Ukraine, internal conflicts and natural disasters. It is vital that policies address poverty and inequality, build resilience and social inclusion and foster sustainable livelihoods. The specific needs of diverse rural and urban contexts, the difference between different types of urban areas (e.g. megacities and towns in largely rural areas) and the linkages between them in the rural-urban continuum, should be considered in formulating food policies. The New Urban Agenda, for example, calls for the integration of food and nutrition security into urban and territorial planning (UN Habitat, 2016). The report could also explore the specific issues concerning food security and nutrition that cities face in situations of conflicts, natural disasters and other crises, especially where there is dependence on imported food and vulnerability to price volatility.

A more in-depth analysis of food systems is needed in the context of urbanization and rural transformation to ensure that the right to food and nutrition security, in all its six dimensions (HLPE, 2020), are met. In particular, the report could investigate the potential of territorial and informal markets, the circular economy, and shorter supply chains to strengthen the linkages between urban and peri-urban food production and consumption. The role of food environments in urban areas is particularly important, considering the coexistence of organized distribution (supermarkets) with territorial and informal markets, and the adverse impacts of supermarketization pushing out small and/or informal food retail outlets (Peyton et al. 2015). As such, parts of cities, often the poorest, have become ‘food deserts’ for fresh and healthy produce, thus affecting city diets, which are already characterised by increasing prioritization of processed and convenience food. In addition, urban centres, and especially informal settlement areas, are often characterized by lack of basic infrastructure such as access to potable water and sewages.  Specific attention to water and sanitation needs is thus required in relation to food utilization in urban and peri-urban areas.

At the same time, urban and peri-urban areas are home to interesting innovations for food production, processing and distribution, such as vertical gardens, ethical purchasing groups and marketing innovations, which could be replicated in other contexts. To strengthen the role of urban and peri-urban food systems, it is essential to reflect on the architecture of food security and nutrition governance, and especially on how city councils, urban planning experts and other partners can engage with actors that are traditionally involved in food systems and food security and nutrition policies to enhance synergies. Some of the policy measures that have been recommended in recent years to enhance the role of urban and peri-urban food systems concern the promotion of equitable access to land and productive agricultural resources for small-scale producers. They also include investment in rural and urban infrastructure, the development of territorial markets and short supply chains, prioritizing people living in poverty in cities and rural areas to access nutritious food and healthier living conditions, and anticipating the inter-connected future of urbanization and rural transformation (HLPE, 2020; Heck and Alonso, 2021).

Building on the outcomes of the CFS Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Urbanization, rural transformation and implications for food security and nutrition (CFS 2017/44/6 and CFS 2016/43/11), recent literature and policy debates, the report will explore these issues and formulate policy recommendations to the attention of the CFS.

QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THE E-CONSULTATION ON THE SCOPE OF THE HLPE-FSN REPORT

The HLPE-FSN is seeking your feedback on the proposed scope of the report “Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation”, in particular, you are invited to:

A

Share your comments on the objectives and proposed content of this report as outlined above.

Do you find the proposed scope comprehensive to analyze and discuss the key issues concerning the role of urban and peri-urban food systems in achieving food security and nutrition? Are there any major gaps or omissions?

B

Share good practices and successful experiences on strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, including in the case of emergencies or conflicts.

C

Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the following questions:

1.            What are the main bottlenecks hampering the contribution of urban and peri-urban food systems to food security and nutrition?

2.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems be transformed and made more equitable and accessible both for food system actors and in terms of food security and nutrition outcomes?

3.            How can urban food supply chains, formal and informal, local and global, be made more resilient to ensure food security and nutrition within urban settings?

4.            What changes are needed in urban planning to better support all dimensions of food security – including support for human rights, agency and sustainability? Which are some of the measures that can strengthen the agency of local actors in urban and peri-urban food systems? 

5.            How can national and municipal governments strengthen the potential for low-carbon, inclusive, relatively self-sufficient and resilient cities and towns to drive improved food security and nutrition in the wake of climate change and other crises?

6.            What are the most appropriate policies (and gaps in existing policies) along the rural-urban continuum to address issues of land tenure, urban expansion into farmland and the growing competition for natural resources?

7.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems ensure that food and nutrition needs of specific groups of people, such as migrants, the internally-displaced, children, adolescent, etc., are met?

8.            What are the potential benefits and challenges of territorial markets for strengthening food security and nutrition for urban populations?

9.            In what ways can the incorporation of climate resilient agricultural and circular economy practices in urban and peri-urban agriculture provide climate co-benefits for all and enhance climate resilience?

10.         How can citizens be engaged and empowered to drive inclusive, transparent, participatory processes for urban transformations, ensuring synergies and complementarity with city councils?

11.         Which experiences of urban communities to increase access to fresh food and healthy diets can inspire broader public policies?

 

The results of this consultation will be used by the HLPE-FSN to elaborate the report, which will then be made public in its V0 draft for e-consultation, and later submitted to peer review, before finalization and approval by the HLPE-FSN drafting team and the Steering Committee.

We thank in advance all the contributors for reading, commenting and providing inputs on the scope of this HLPE-FSN report. The comments are accepted in English, French and Spanish languages.

The HLPE-FSN looks forward to a rich consultation!

Évariste Nicolétis, HLPE-FSN Coordinator

Paola Termine, HLPE-FSN Programme Officer


References

Acharya, G. Cassou, E. Jaffee, S., Ludher, E.K. 2020. RICH Food, Smart City: How Building Reliable, Inclusive, Competitive, and Healthy Food Systems is Smart Policy for Urban Asia. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35137   

Battersby, J. 2017. Food system transformation in the absence of food system planning: the case of supermarket and shopping mall retail expansion in Cape Town, South Africa. Built Environment, 43(3): 417-430.

FAO. 2020. Cities and local governments at the forefront in building inclusive and resilient food systems: Key results from the FAO Survey “Urban Food Systems and COVID-19”, Revised version. Rome.

Heck, S. & Alonso, S. 2021. Resilient Cities Through Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agrifood Systems. Montpellier, France, CGIAR. Resilient-Cities.pdf (storage.googleapis.com)

HLPE. 2020. Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf

Krishnamurthy, P. K., Choularton, R. J., & Kareiva, P. 2020. Dealing with uncertainty in famine predictions: How complex events affect food security early warning skill in the Greater Horn of Africa. Global Food Security, 26: 100374.

Lal, R. 2020. Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Food Security, 12: 871-876. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-020-01058-3

Langemeyer, J., Madrid-López, C., Mendoza Beltrán, A. & Villalba Mendez, G. 2021. Urban agriculture — A necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability? Landscape and Urban Planning, 210: 104055. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204621000189

Moseley, W. G. 2001. Monitoring urban food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Geographical Review, 21(1): 81-90.

Pelling, M., Chow, W. T. L., Chu, E., Dawson, R., Dodman, D., Fraser, A., Hayward, B. et al. 2021. A climate resilience research renewal agenda: learning lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development, 0(0): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1956411

Peyton, S., Moseley, W. & Battersby, J. 2015. Implications of supermarket expansion on urban food security in Cape Town, South Africa. African Geographical Review, 34(1): 36-54.

Rao, N., Narain, N., Chakraborty, S., Bhanjdeo, A. & Pattnaik, A. 2020. Destinations Matter: Social Policy and Migrant Workers in the Times of Covid. The European Journal of Development Research, 32(5): 1639–1661. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7590571/

Recine, E., Preiss, P.V., Valencia, M. et al. 2021. The Indispensable Territorial Dimension of Food Supply: A View from Brazil During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Development, 64: 282–287. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-021-00308-x    

Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar (Rede PENSSAN). 2021. VIGISAN National Survey of Food Insecurity in the Context of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Brazil https://olheparaafome.com.br/VIGISAN_AF_National_Survey_of_Food_Insecurity.pdf

Tefft, J., Jonasova, M., Adjao, R. & Morgan, A. 2017. Food systems for an urbanizing world. Washington DC, World Bank and Rome, FAO.

UNDESA (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2018. 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. New York. Cited June 2022. https://desapublications.un.org/file/615/download

UN-Habitat (United Nations Human Settlements Programme). 2016. The New Urban Agenda. Nairobi. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf

This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.

* Click on the name to read all comments posted by the member and contact him/her directly
  • Read 96 contributions
  • Expand all

Dr. Andrew Schmitz

University of Florida
United States of America

Three key issues that need more attention:

  1. food storage
  2. food waste and
  3. transportation

which are linked in any meaningful value chain analyses In many regions ,and for many commodities , storage facilities if they do exist are inadequate . Food waste is a major concern and more analyses of this topic is badly needed For example most analysts miss the fact that eating and cooking meals at home generate more food waste than eating away from home The cost of transportation has risen sharply and transportation linkages connecting production sources and consumer demands ,as shown in supply chain analyses , are often non existent.

For references:

Andrew Schmitz, Charles B. Moss, Troy G. Schmitz, G. Cornelis van Kooten and H. Carole Schmitz (2022) Agricultural Policy, Agribusiness, and Rent-Seeking Behaviour.

Dr. Andrew Schmitz

Ben Hill Griffin, Jr., Eminent Scholar and Professor

Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida

Dr. Pradip Dey

ICAR-AICRP (STCR), Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal
India

Dear FSN Members and others,

Good evening from India!

Kindly find below the comments w.r.t. point no. 10 about citizen engagement vis-a-vis capacity building:

Capacity building - at both individual and institutional level, greater involvement of private sector through Public Private Partnership and better awareness is important. Top-down anti-corruption practices and national level approaches to improving accountability mechanisms have often failed in fragile and conflict-affected situations. In contrast, identifying and supporting local accountability mechanisms, strengthening partnerships, and supporting collaborative governance and capacity building has been shown to be more effective in these contexts. The accountability triangle involving Citizen, Policymakers and Public Private Partnership provides a way to understand successes and failures along the service delivery chain by analyzing the relationships between policymakers/politicians, service providers and citizens. 

With warm regards 

Dear Évariste Nicolétis and Paola Termine,

This is an important step that can address various socio-ecological and economic challenges related to urbanisation and sustainability. I appreciate you for taking this timely and important topic for consultation.

My comments will focus more on gaps in the scope related to urban agriculture that address questions A and B.

A. Do you find the proposed scope comprehensive to analyze and discuss the key issues concerning the role of urban and peri-urban food systems in achieving food security and nutrition? Are there any major gaps or omissions?

  1. Recognising multifunctionality of urban agriculture: In the context of urbanisation, urban agriculture can serve multiple functions in addition to contributing to food security and nutrition. Recognising the multifunctionality of urban agriculture is crucial to explore its overall sustainability potential including contributing to food security and nutrition. The scope of this HLPE report has focused on mere food security and nutrition aspects of urban agriculture and has not addressed its multifunctionality. This might invite unwarranted sustainability challenges as it may be interpreted as mere expansion of present modes of food production into the urban areas. If urban agriculture can contribute to sustainability along with ensuring food security, it must be integrated into the urban fabric and it needs to consider all social, ecological, cultural, and economic outcomes urban agriculture can offer. It would be great if the report incorporates these aspects into its scope.
  2. Recognising diversity of urban agriculture practices: There are multitudes of urban agriculture practices. However, the scope of the report seems to focus more on land-based urban agricultural practices which is mostly mere expansion of conventional agriculture to urban areas. Although it is important to bring all possible unused urban land under food production, it may also lead to challenges that the dominant agri-food system already eliciting in the rural hinterlands. Also, such urban agriculture practices will not be well-integrated into the urban fabric. Therefore, to ensure long-lasting and sustainable urban agricultural practices, the emphasis of the report should be to promote various types of small-scale urban agricultural practices that are well-integrated into the urban fabric and use all otherwise unused spaces for food production. The types of urban agriculture practices that needs more policy attention and promotion may vary depending upon the geographical context and local specificities. However, there should be special emphasis not to ignore small-scale and non-commercial urban agricultural practices in the policy support.
  3. Emphasis on ecological, circular, and resource-efficient production methods: The scope of the HLPE report do not speak about sustainable production methods of urban agriculture that needs to be adopted in order to ensure ecological sustainability in addition to food security and nutrition. Ecological, circular, and resource-efficient production methods need to receive adequate attention in the HLPE report. As there is constant competition for resources in the urban areas, special emphasis should be given to develop and promote practices that are resource efficient. Ecological production practices need to be emphasised because otherwise urban agriculture may act against the concept of ecological sustainability and health if more agrochemicals are introduced into the urban areas. Also, to well-integrate into the urban fabric and to ensure circular food production, there should be more focus on integrating urban waste management with urban agriculture.
  4. Overcoming Global North-South divide in urban agriculture research: There is a large divide between Global North and Global South in carrying out the research on urban agriculture. Institutions from Global North has dominated in urban agriculture research and this has resulted in providing a world view that is largely reflective of urban agriculture practices from the Global North (Pinheiro and Govind 2020) (document attached). Therefore, urban agriculture practices and its intricacies from the Global South has been largely absent in the peer-reviewed research literature. It would be pertinent for the HLPE report to consider this knowledge gap and take measures to overcome it.
  5. Gaps need to be addressed by policy actors:
    1. Much of the interventions on urban agriculture, especially government initiatives, largely focuses on large cities. New interventions for urban agriculture promotion in large cities may act as mitigation measures to address climate change whereas in small towns and cities, urban agriculture can offer adaptation measures. Moreover, in small-towns and cities have more flexibility to incorporate urban agriculture in their interventions to build edible urban areas. HLPE report needs to emphasis this aspect to avoid bias in the interventions.
    2. The scope of the HLPE report do not talk much about inclusiveness in the interventions for urban agriculture. It needs conscious efforts to make sure that the benefits of urban agriculture are extended to all sections of society in an affordable and culturally appropriate way.
    3. Also, there should be integration of activities of various government departments to make sure that adequate steps are taken to integrate waste management with urban food production.
    4. Integrating urban agriculture into the urban short food supply chains are another area that need innovative policy attention. It may not be always possible to integrate urban agriculture produces into the existing marketing channels. Innovative measures need to be taken to create new urban short food supply chains where even small-quantities of home-grown or garden-surplus produces can be sold.
    5. There is a dearth of quantitative data on urban agriculture practices, its focus and production, and other sustainability outcomes. It will be pertinent to keep a database to keep track of urban agriculture policy interventions so that adequate measures can be taken for further improvement.

B. Share good practices and successful experiences on strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, including in the case of emergencies or conflicts.

a. In one of the Indian states, Kerala, there were government interventions for promotion of urban home gardening in private residential spaces across the state irrespective of the size or population of the urban areas. Kerala has a rural-urban continuum and high urban population (almost half of the total population). From 2012-2013 to 2021-22, the government has taken measures to incorporate subsidised distribution of containers planted with vegetable seedlings at a cost as low as less than 7 USD, after 75 % subsidy. This enabled people from almost all sections of society to start home-garden vegetable cultivation in all possible spaces in their residential areas, be it ground, rooftop, parapet, balcony or top of boundary walls. Also, there were measures to distribute drip or wick irrigation units suitable for small house lots to ensure water-efficient vegetable gardening. In addition, there were also interventions to distribute waste management units under subsidy schemes so that home garden vegetable cultivation can be integrated with household waste management. These activities, carried out as part of ‘Promotion of urban clusters and waste management’ under Vegetable Development Program focused on reviving the traditional practices of home gardening with small-scale technological support to make it suitable for space-crunch urban areas. In other states where respective state governments promote urban home gardening/kitchen gardening in India, the scope has been limited only to large cities with a higher population.

b. In one district centre in Kerala, there is an initiative led by a social media collective (Facebook-based agriculture group operated in the local language Malayalam) to link home-grown food production with urban short food supply chains. They use the Facebook group to disseminate information on the types and quantities of the produces that will be available in the urban weekly market. This group takes stringent measures to ensure that all the produce sold there is grown completely organically and ensures “know your farmer” or “vegetables with an address” to the customers. More details can be found in Pinheiro (200). The document is attached here.

Enclosures for further reading:

Pinheiro, A. (2022). Urban home gardening movement in Kerala—Role of social media collectives. LEISA-India. https://leisaindia.org/urban-home-gardening-movement-in-kerala-role-of-…

Pinheiro, A., & Govind, M. (2020). Emerging Global Trends in Urban Agriculture Research: A Scientometric Analysis of Peer-reviewed Journals. Journal of Scientometric Research, 9(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.9.2.20

Dear FSN Moderator and the HLPE team, thank-you for the opportunity to provide inputs during this scoping phase. My notes can be found below. Looking forward to the report.

Best Dr. A Trevenen-Jones

The outline scope of the report indicates a much-needed attention to the widening inequalities in urban food systems driven by the unique food environment, insufficient understanding and intervention around the informal food sector, aspects of gender and dietary challenges alongside multiplier Anthropocene impacts. It also highlights the urban-peri-urban and rural food system connectivity, but perhaps more could be developed with respect to referencing a sustainable food systems framework. While best practices regarding what city governments and partners are doing to transform their food systems are being shared by cities across the world, through for example, platforms like the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (awards) and Food Action Cities accessible databases, less appears to be shared about learnings and monitoring and evaluation – about what worked and what didn’t, what and how just food transformation was monitored and how communities moved forward. This is of value given the context specific character of food systems and governance and that everyone is learning and course correcting along the way.

Coverage of the UNFSS Coalitions, as interlinked in an ‘’ecosystem’’ of support to regional, national, sub-national including local governments with special mention of the Coalition on Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Food Systems and updates (if possible) as per the UNFSS Stocktaking in mid-2023 would be meaningful and can provide a dynamic resource within the report.  Cross referencing with key reports like SOFI (2022) and the more recent Asia-Pacific SOFI as well as the Global Nutrition report provides further depth and a national and global perspective.

Cities/urban communities’ key role in invigorating urban-rural and regional connectivity and accelerated FS transformation is recognised in the scoping. It is worth mentioning that this is not only through the usual staple and fresh food demand but also by providing strong consumption-production signals for a diversity of sustainable and resilient food relationships through circular (‘’zero-waste’’) food systems, regenerative rural landscapes and social and technological innovations. In this respect, these dimensions should be further explored,

  • indigenous knowledge,
  • cultural practices,
  • food as social relationships,
  • intermediary cities as hubs connecting smaller towns, rural communities and larger cities,
  • small farmers and variety of multiple food systems linked SMEs,
  • storage and cool room value additions,
  • food handling and safety knowledge and practices,
  • diversified food system livelihoods especially in the informal sector,
  • better leveraging of how food is distributed through informal and formal channels including reaching those living in poverty and vulnerable to all forms of malnutrition, and the value of vendor/farmer and consumer fresh food markets as places where food knowledge and practices are shared and reinforced,
  • formal governance e.g. city governments/municipalities vs informal governance e.g. urban ‘’traditional’’ fresh food market committees as well as multi-level governance and multi-stakeholder mechanisms as mandated and as per practices, further noting the extent of effective local agency to reshape food environments/systems,
  • alignment around ‘’One city, one food system’’ type principles whether through formal or informal/voluntary partnerships,
  • positive implications of supermarket growth and aspirational low-middle income communities e.g. food safety, diversity and price of food, shifting consumer preferences,
  • social and ecological resilience,
  • access to sub-national food systems data – quantitative and qualitative, as well as
  • gender mainstreaming and youth engagement - as designed and practiced.

Moreover, as cities expand and more people reside in cities issues of ‘’food deserts’’ and urban creep into the peri-urban surrounds arise as such what constitutes urban vs peri-urban food system, agency and inclusion, nexus relationships e.g. food, municipal water, renewable energy, as well as impact on affordability and physical access to safe, nutritious and diverse foods should be clarified – with referencing of Dietary Quality.

A final note on context, while this matters, practices and learnings from other cities/cases offer invaluable tools, learnings and approaches which can be copied and or adapted. In this respect while there are disparities between developed and developing countries and cities exemplars offered by the cities of Baltimore, Bristol, Nairobi, Dhaka, Quelimane, New York and many others should be considered – and selected based on inspiration and criteria like city ‘’size and administrative mandate’’ and address of equity, urban planning innovation or best practice, ‘’one city’’ partnerships, farmers markets etc.

Suggested resources:

Dear CFS/HLPE-FSN Team,

 Please find my Inputs,

  • Urban growth borders have become a key instrument for containment, restricting urban growth and separating urban and rural areas.
  • Unplanned "urban sprawls" are environmentally unsustainable and consume valuable land resources, often fertile agricultural land.
  • In the last 4 decades in some cities we have witnessed the impact of urbanization on the natural resources, decline of vegetation more than 60% and water bodies more than 70%, with an increase of temperature by ~2 to 2.5 ºC.
  • The food pattern of the population has significantly changed, from the last few decades due to various reasons like migration for job, education, business and on transfer etc. The food consumption is not nutritious because of adapting to new trends and change of life style and adopting throw away culture. There is a shift in cultural and traditional practise of food habits.

On behalf of We Effect, a Swedish cooperative development cooperation organisation, I share cases and comments collected from our work with partner organisations.

We have numerous cases of home gardens. First out is a case from Zimbabwe where one of our partner organisations has seen that with the adoption of organic farming input, farming costs have been reduced by more than 90% (Cost of producing a 200L cow fertiliser cost US$5 while cost of Ammonium Nitrate inorganic fertiliser is US$54-$75). Members of our supported partner organisation are now producing food at a minimal cost. In Gambiza, Chiundura, Getrude who relies on gardening projects testifies that besides having the organic fertilisers (fish hydrolysate and lab serum) helping in the growth of her vegetables, she has realised that they control aphids and help keep the crops healthy. She has moved from using artificial fertilisers ever since she got the information from the organisation Women and Land in Zimbambwe (WLZ) about organic liquid fertilisers. Training initiatives have also attracted many people to join WLZ groups and with it, there has been an increase in WLZ membership with the final result of 95% of members applying climate resilient farming practices.

More cases and comments are attached:

Attached: Case of domestic organoponic gardens in housing cooperatives in Central America.

Attached: Case of azolla crop cultivation on Palestine

Attached: Cases of urban and peri-urban low water usage agriculture in Palestine

Attached: Comments from our Zambia land office on the two questions of: 

  • What are the most appropriate policies (and gaps in existing policies) along the rural-urban continuum to address issues of land tenure, urban expansion into farmland and the growing competition for natural resources?
  • In what ways can the incorporation of climate resilient agricultural and circular economy practices in urban and peri-urban agriculture provide climate co-benefits for all and enhance climate resilience?

If more best practice cases of home gardens are of interest, or more in-depth information about the ones listed above, we are happy to contribute with such.

TMG’s work as part of the Urban Food Futures programme addressed the two questions:

1)How can urban and peri-urban food systems be transformed and made more equitable and accessible both for food system actors and in terms of food security and nutrition outcomes?

2) How can citizens be engaged and empowered to drive inclusive, transparent, participatory processes for urban transformations, ensuring synergies and complementarity with city councils?

Setting out at the height of the Covid-19 crisis, our work was driven by one overarching question: how have low-income communities in the three cities responded to the impact of the pandemic on food security? And, subsequently, what can we learn from immediate community responses to design pathways for transformation of urban food systems? To achieve food system transformation, therefore, we need to re-politicize issues around food and hunger. While celebrating individual successes, the impact we want to see goes beyond the single project. One of our main objectives for the second phase of the programme is to establish “Urban Nutrition Hubs” as spaces for learning, dialogue, and piloting of innovation. Using a living lab approach, the Hubs will serve as spaces for co-creating knowledge with local communities and other actors, and driving the implementation of our programmatic pathways as we continue to pilot and link multiple local innovations with municipal action. To achieve food and nutrition security in urban areas, food and nutrition policies must be fundamentally rethought from the point of view of the needs of those who are experiencing food and nutrition insecurity. Food security policies tend to neglect cities as a distinct entity requiring distinct policies, and they tend to focus on increasing food production. This negates the recommendations arising from a range of findings that show that food insecurity is often tied to income, gender, and social status. Strategies to address food and nutrition insecurity in informal settlements and low-income areas require solutions beyond traditional strategies that are often focussed on production-oriented solutions. If those had worked in the past, lives in informal settlements would look different today. Transformative changes to improve urban food security and nutrition must employ different strategies informed by local realities and must centre the consumer perspective. This requires a commitment to understanding the complex realities of urban low-income areas and informal settlements and acknowledge the drivers of food insecurity, particularly in the light of crises. Urban Nutrition Hubs are living labs in real-life settings where solutions to food system challenges emerge. Urban Nutrition Hubs are characterised by their multifunctionality. Food is symbolic of identity and collective culture and is often manifested in unpaid care work provided by women on farms, in kitchens, as vendors, or in other communal roles. Urban Nutrition Hubs will serve as places to advocate for women’s rights and support the empowerment of women through networking and advocacy programmes. 

TMG's Pathways for Transformation:

https://downloads.ctfassets.net/rrirl83ijfda/6mSvmaV4SgT1Kedf6dS0jM/a24…

Dr. Marc Wegerif

University of Pretoria. Dept. Anthropology, Archaeology and Development Studies
South Africa
Dear Moderator and HLPE



Please find a submission in response to your "HLPE-FSN e-consultation on Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation". 

Thanks for this consultation and the important initiative. I hope some of the ideas are useful for this important piece of work that the HLPE is undertaking.

The scope and rationale is generally good. The current scope is completely gender blind. Please do not proceed with this without giving good attention to the particular roles and vulnerabilities of women within food systems. If you would like to follow up on any particular suggestions, feel free to contact me. 

My comments are structured in response to the consultation guiding questions. Apologies that some of it is rushed. Giving ideas seemed more important than polished answers.



Stay well




Dr. Marc Wegerif

Development Studies Programme Coordinator, Department of Anthropology, Archaeology and Development Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Pretoria, South Africa

Inputs 

A

Share your comments on the objectives and proposed content of this report as outlined above.

Do you find the proposed scope comprehensive to analyze and discuss the key issues concerning the role of urban and peri-urban food systems in achieving food security and nutrition? Are there any major gaps or omissions?

Good piece of work. The scope is clear and comprehensive. Good to see the attention given to the importance of ‘informal’ food systems and the “complex network of suppliers, transporters, hawkers, retailers and street and market food vendors, in addition to farmers” that are involved. Also the reference to territorial markets and the role of municipalities are particularly positive.

While talking food systems, one does not get a very clear sense of a food system approach. I would expect more attention to the way in which food systems are shaped by, and in turn shape, the wider social, economic and ecological conditions.

The line starting at bottom of page two does direct us to some of these issues, but that line does not explicitly mention food system and we don’t get explicit acknowledgment of the role of food systems in relation to these social and ecological issues.

Missing is:

- Reference to gender and the particular roles and vulnerabilities of women.

- Clarity on what is meant by “urban and peri-urban food systems”. I understand an urban food system to be the food system that provides food to the residents of an urban area, or urban areas. That then incorporates the food system from inputs, primary production, processing, transporting, distribution, retailing through to consumption. One could imagine some people reading the scope and rationale document and seeing the urban and peri-urban food system as being what happens in urban and peri-urban areas. The holistic approach I am suggesting is the most appropriate way to also address the link with rural areas.

- Attention to the livelihood, business, and livelihood creating role and opportunities in urban and peri-urban food systems. Food systems do, and need to, create livelihoods and broad based business opportunities.

- Attention to the social dynamics of food systems. They can build or undermine social cohesion.

- Enough attention to assessing the ecological (environmental) impacts of food systems and the need for ecologically regenerative food systems.

- Attention to what one could think of as “middle-ground, neither local nor global, food systems” (Wegerif & Wiskerke, 2017). The mention of “short supply chains” doesn’t cover this and is problematic in other ways, as I shall explain below. The reality is that much food needed in cities, especially heavy staples, has to come from some distance. But this does not have to be through global supply chains. There are two key issues that need more attention: 1) the mid-distance, of rural hinterlands of a country and intra-regional trade that might cover some distance, but are very different from depending on global food systems and global supply chains for food; and 2) the nature of the actors and social and economic relations involved in these food flows even when they cover some distance.

- Power and inequality in the framing of the issue and focus of the study. I put these two important issues together as they are so interlinked. Food systems are shaped by power and they can drive greater inequality and with it greater accumulation of not just wealth, but also power, or they can be more equitable and move societies to be more equitable. This exercise needs to be very cognisant of power and inequality, it needs to explore in looking at existing food systems and proposing any interventions who the winners and losers are, who owns what and who gets what. It needs to look at what power is shaping food systems and the policies related to them and interventions that are made and not made.

- Food utilisation issues that relate to food choices and health issues. These do directly impact food and nutrition security outcomes. Perhaps, to bring this out alongside other factors, the triple burden of poor nutrition concept would be useful.

Some debates:

- The notion of supply chains does not fit with the reality of many urban food systems that are better understood as the complex networks as mentioned in the document. The difference is important because the study needs to understand the nature of relations involved and in many cities in the South and these are not ‘supply chain’ relations, so they should not be assumed to be or be judged in relation to ‘supply chain’ thinking. The other way in which ‘short supply chains’ don’t fit, is the undefined notion of ‘short’, as covered in the note on ‘middle-ground’ above. It would be problematic to start out research with normative assumptions that short is always necessarily better, especially taking into account the rural producers as well as urban eaters.

- The notion of informal is problematic due to the lack of clarity about what it means (Dell'Anno, 2022), its description of something by what it is not, which has a built in assumption about what it should be and therefore about its inferiority in relation to that ideal. And this is not just a theoretical argument; we see the prejudice against the informal play out in state actions (Battersby, 2020; Kiaka et al., 2021; Skinner, 2018; Wegerif, 2020). It is also problematic to think, as many do, of food systems that are dominant in their contexts, supply most of the food for urban eaters, and involve an array of forms of taxations, regulation and registration (such as of market traders and small shop owners), as ‘informal’. I appreciate your centring of ‘informal’ in the scoping document as it is a known term and your use of it shows recognition of much of the food system of cities in the global south, but I would at the same time appeal to the team to look beyond the notion of informal, to explore the actual nature of these urban food systems, to understand their organising logic, and to not start out prejudiced with assumptions of ‘formal’ as a standard to reach and measure the rest against. This piece of work could make a useful contribution by questioning and exploring other options to the concept of informal for describing the most important food systems for those in poverty in our cities.

B

Share good practices and successful experiences on strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, including in the case of emergencies or conflicts.

The good practices that I want to urge greater attention to are the what the subaltern in cities of the global south are doing themselves. That is what those in poverty create for themselves to meet their needs for food and livelihoods. Much of this falls into what gets termed ‘informal’. But informal in fact covers many things, not all related to those in poverty. The issue is to value and learn from what the poor and oppressed do themselves.

The work of Jane Battersby and others linked to the Hungry Cities Partnership has revealed some of these important good practices, at least the importance for food supply of the ‘informal’ parts of the food system (Battersby et al., 2016; Battersby & Watson, 2018; Haysom, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2021; Skinner, 2016; Skinner & Haysom, 2016).

Work on urban subaltern studies from south Asia, such as by Bayat and Roy, have lessons for us on urban food systems, even if their own work is not food focussed (Bayat, 2000; Roy, 2005, 2011).

 

My own work on the feeding of Dar es Salaam shows good practices in how a symbiotic food system, with multitudes of actors and no corporate vertical integration, feeds a large and fast growing city (Wegerif, 2020; Wegerif, 2014; Wegerif & Hebinck, 2016; Wegerif & Martucci, 2019).

Planning, urban plans, infrastructure, and food system governance that creates space for food trade, for food markets, and for the many (including the unruly) initiatives of the sub-altern is good practice (Battersby & Watson, 2019; Skinner & Watson, 2020; Wegerif & Kissoly, 2022; Zhong et al., 2019) and these should be useful (Béné & Devereux, 2023; Haysom, 2022).

I have current and ongoing work looking at street traders selling fresh produce and their contribution to food access and food systems as a whole in South Africa. This contribution is happening despite the high level of corporate concentration in food systems in South Africa. This, I would argue, is a good practice. As work is ongoing, much has not been published yet, but a few things related to this have come out and more is on the way (Tempia et al., 2023; Wegerif, 2022a).

C

Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the following questions:

1.            What are the main bottlenecks hampering the contribution of urban and peri-urban food systems to food security and nutrition?

Corporate concentration in food systems including increasing financialisation (Greenberg, 2015, 2017; Heijden & Vink, 2013; Wegerif & Anseeuw, 2020). Also policy makers’ and planners’ neglect or active undermining of parts of the food system. We need far more attention to the impacts and implications of financialisaton in the global food system.

2.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems be transformed and made more equitable and accessible both for food system actors and in terms of food security and nutrition outcomes?

Learn from and build on how the subaltern organise food systems. Multitudes of actors of similar scale in symbiotic relations. Grow the food system through replication, not scaling up. Spaces for markets in cities within walking distance of all residents. Local small shops. Bicycle based distribution. Certain levels of protection from the vagaries of international trade and non-food influences such as exchange rate fluctuations. Primarily agroecological production. Autonomy of farmers and other actors in food systems. I have put references for my work on this, such as (Wegerif, 2020), here are a few more other writings of value among many other works (De Schutter, 2010; Gliessman, 2018; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018; Rosset et al., 2011; Van der Ploeg, 2008, 2014)

3.            How can urban food supply chains, formal and informal, local and global, be made more resilient to ensure food security and nutrition within urban settings?

First move away from ‘food supply chains’ thinking that is rooted in corporate practices that prioritise accumulation for the few and do not work for the majority. We don’t need to make ‘supply chains’ more resilient, we need socially and ecologically regenerative food systems. I believe my answer to question 2 above covers some of this. The full elaboration will need a lot more space than this brief input.

What I will add here is the need to recognise the ways in which market relations are socially (as well as economically) embedded and to then seek ways to enhance the best in us; the collaborations between actors that keep food systems more collaborative, inclusive, and equitable (Ndhlovu, 2022; Ostrom, 1990, 2010; Zak, 2011).

4.            What changes are needed in urban planning to better support all dimensions of food security – including support for human rights, agency and sustainability? Which are some of the measures that can strengthen the agency of local actors in urban and peri-urban food systems? 

Space for the initiatives of the subaltern based on recognising their agency. Plan for space for food markets and trading within walking distance of all in the cities. Move away from outdated three party (state, private sector, community) ideas of stakeholder involvement. Ensure infrastructure and technology that enables multitudes of actors of a small-scale. Avoid concentration of ownership, production, and processing. Grow through replication, not scaling up.  Some references (Skinner & Watson, 2020; Wegerif, 2022b; Wegerif & Kissoly, 2022; Zhong et al., 2019).

5.            How can national and municipal governments strengthen the potential for low-carbon, inclusive, relatively self-sufficient and resilient cities and towns to drive improved food security and nutrition in the wake of climate change and other crises?

I believe my answers on some of the above cover this to some extent. These are big questions that I can’t fully address in this short input.

6.            What are the most appropriate policies (and gaps in existing policies) along the rural-urban continuum to address issues of land tenure, urban expansion into farmland and the growing competition for natural resources?

I have touched on some of what is needed above. Let me emphasis here some of the main problems (Gaps). One is the focus on corporate supply and value chains and efforts to incorporate other actors into these rather than support real and living alternatives. Another is under valuing and undermining what the subaltern do themselves. And another is overlooking power in food systems. And, last I will state here is a continued failure by decision makers to truly take a holistic food system approach. By that I mean the failure to fully factor in and value in our analysis and interventions the full social, economic, and ecological contribution of food systems as elaborated in a range of documents (FAO, 2018; HLPE, 2020).

7.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems ensure that food and nutrition needs of specific groups of people, such as migrants, the internally-displaced, children, adolescent, etc., are met?

My suggestions above will assist with this, in particular the focus on food systems of and for the sub-altern. This includes recognising and working with their agency.

8.            What are the potential benefits and challenges of territorial markets for strengthening food security and nutrition for urban populations?

More diversified multi-actor food systems with greater autonomy from corporate control (CSM, 2016).

9.            In what ways can the incorporation of climate resilient agricultural and circular economy practices in urban and peri-urban agriculture provide climate co-benefits for all and enhance climate resilience?

This needs smaller-scale operations networked in symbiotic food systems within which animal manure and what would otherwise be food waste are reused as compost, etc. Water use planning and management are critical in many areas.

10.         How can citizens be engaged and empowered to drive inclusive, transparent, participatory processes for urban transformations, ensuring synergies and complementarity with city councils?

Recognise and be responsive to the actions and initiatives (agency) of the subaltern. That doesn’t mean traditional stakeholder meetings, it means positive responses to people’s actions and initiatives. New alliances are needed among the ‘informal’ traders, small-scale processors and small-scale farmers for them to be organised and heard differently.

11.         Which experiences of urban communities to increase access to fresh food and healthy diets can inspire broader public policies?

The way street traders of different kinds create livelihoods for themselves and make food more accessible to those in poverty.

Some References:

Battersby, J. (2020). South Africa’s lockdown regulations and the reinforcement of anti-informality bias. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 543-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10078-w

Battersby, J., Marshak, M., & Mngqibisa, N. (2016). Mapping the invisible: the Informal food economy of Cape Town, South Africa (Urban food security series, Issue. https://hungrycities.net/publication/hcp-discussion-papers-no-5-mapping-informal-food-economy-cape-town-south-africa/

Battersby, J., & Watson, V. (2018). Urban Food Systems Governance and Poverty in African Cities. Routledge.

Battersby, J., & Watson, V. (2019). The planned ‘city-region’in the New Urban Agenda: an appropriate framing for urban food security? Town Planning Review, 90(5), 497-519.

Bayat, A. (2000). From ‘Dangerous Classes' to Quiet Rebels' Politics of the Urban Subaltern in the Global South. International sociology, 15(3), 533-557. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026858000015003005

Béné, C., & Devereux, S. (2023). Resilience and Food Security in a Food Systems Context. Springer Nature.

CSM. (2016). Connecting Smallholders to Markets: An Analytical Guide (International Civil Society Mechanism, Hands On the Land Alliance for Food Sovereignty, Issue. https://www.csm4cfs.org/connecting-smallholders-markets-analytical-guide/

Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter (Agroecology), Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms  (Human Rights Council, United Nations, A/HRC/16/49 2010).

Dell'Anno, R. (2022). Theories and definitions of the informal economy: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 36(5), 1610-1643.

FAO. (2018). Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Gliessman, S. (2018). Feeding Prometheus: agroecology and unchaining our desire for food system transformation. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems.

Greenberg, S. (2015). Corporate Concentration And Food Security In South Africa: Is The Commercial Agro-Food System Delivering?

Greenberg, S. (2017). Corporate power in the agro-food system and the consumer food environment in South Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(2), 467-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1259223

Haysom, G. (2015). Food and the city: Urban scale food system governance. Urban Forum,

Haysom, G. (2022). Understanding secondary city typologies: A food governance lens. In Transforming Urban Food Systems in Secondary Cities in Africa (pp. 25-44). Springer International Publishing Cham.

Heijden, T. v. d., & Vink, N. (2013). Good for whom? Supermarkets and small farmers in South Africa–a critical review of current approaches to increasing access to modern markets. Agrekon, 52(1), 68-86.

HLPE. (2020). Food security and nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030. CFS - Committee on World Food Security. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf

Kiaka, R., Chikulo, S., Slootheer, S., & Hebinck, P. (2021). “The street is ours”. A comparative analysis of street trading, Covid-19 and new street geographies in Harare, Zimbabwe and Kisumu, Kenya. Food Security, 1-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01162-y

Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho, M., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H., Ferguson, B. G., Rosset, P., Khadse, A., & Campos, C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(6), 637-665. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

Ndhlovu, T. P. (2022). Food (in) security, the moral economy, and Ubuntu in South Africa: a Southern perspective. Review of international political economy, 1-25.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review, 100, 408-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2010.11658229

Rosset, P. M., Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime, A. M., & Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011). The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 161-191.

Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: Toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of the american planning association, 71(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976689

Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International journal of urban and regional research, 35(2), 223-238.

Rudolph, M., Kroll, F., Muchesa, E., Paiker, M., & Fatti, P. (2021). Food Security in Urban Cities: A Case Study Conducted in Johannesburg, South Africa. Journal of Food Security, 9(2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-9-2-2

Skinner, C. (2016). Informal food retail in Africa: A review of evidence (Consuming urban poverty project, Issue.

Skinner, C. (2018). Contributing yet excluded? Informal food retail in African cities. In J. Battersby & V. Watson (Eds.), Urban Food Systems Governance and Poverty in African Cities (pp. 141). Routledge.

Skinner, C., & Haysom, G. (2016). The informal sector's role in food security: A missing link in policy debates? https://repository.uwc.ac.za/handle/10566/4527

Skinner, C., & Watson, V. (2020). The informal economy in urban Africa: Challenging planning theory and praxis. In M. Chen & F. Carré (Eds.), The Informal economy revisited: Examining the past, envisioning the future (pp. 123-131). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429200724-21/informal-economy-urban-africa-caroline-skinner-vanessa-watson

Tempia, N. P., Nakana, E., Malungane, M., & Wegerif, M. (2023). Fresh Produce Market Challenges and Opportunities: A Case for the Johannesburg Municipal Fresh Produce Market. Global Agricultural and Food Marketing in a Global Context: Advancing Policy, Management, and Innovation, 120-141.

Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2008). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. Earthscan.

Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2014). Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 999-1030.

Wegerif, M. (2020). The Symbiotic Food System. In J. Duncan, J. S. Wiskerke, & M. S. Carolan (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Regenerative Food Systems (pp. 188-203). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Sustainable-and-Regenerative-Food-Systems-1st-Edition/Duncan-Carolan-Wiskerke/p/book/9781138608047

Wegerif, M. (2022a). The impact of Covid-19 on black farmers in South Africa. Agrekon, 61(1), 52-66. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2021.1971097

Wegerif, M. (2022b). South Africa After COVID-19: Identifying the Overlooked Economic Actors Needed for a Just and Equitable Food System. In S. Schneider, Preiss, P.V. and Marsden, T. (Ed.), Food and Agriculture in Urbanized Societies (Vol. 26, pp. 107-128). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1057-192220220000026011/full/html

Wegerif, M., & Anseeuw, W. (2020). Unearthing less visible trends in land inequality. https://d3o3cb4w253x5q.cloudfront.net/media/documents/land_inequality_conceptual_paper_2020_11_unearthing_less_visible_trends_en_spr_lavhFDK.pdf

Wegerif, M. C., & Kissoly, L. (2022). Perspective from an African City: Food Market Governance in Dar es Salaam. In A. Moragues-Faus, J. K. Clark, J. Battersby, & A. Davies (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Urban Food Governance (pp. 278-292). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Urban-Food-Governance/Moragues-Faus-Clark-Battersby-Davies/p/book/9780367518004

Wegerif, M. C., & Wiskerke, J. S. (2017). Exploring the Staple Foodscape of Dar es Salaam. Sustainability, 9(6), 1081. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061081

Wegerif, M. C. A. (2014). Exploring Sustainable Urban Food Provisioning: The Case of Eggs in Dar es Salaam. Sustainability, 6(6), 3747-3779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6063747

Wegerif, M. C. A. (2020). “Informal” food traders and food security: experiences from the Covid-19 response in South Africa. Food Security, 12(4), 797-800. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01078-z

Wegerif, M. C. A., & Hebinck, P. (2016). The Symbiotic Food System: An ‘Alternative’Agri-Food System Already Working at Scale. Agriculture, 6(3), 40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6030040

Wegerif, M. C. A., & Martucci, R. (2019). Milk and the city: Raw milk challenging the value claims of value chains. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43(10), 1077-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1530716

Zak, P. J. (2011). Moral markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(2), 212-233.

Zhong, T., Si, Z., Crush, J., Scott, S., & Huang, X. (2019). Achieving urban food security through a hybrid public-private food provisioning system: the case of Nanjing, China. Food Security, 11(5), 1071-1086.

Dear FSN moderator,

It is my pleasure – as programme manager -  to share a contribution from the WUR team involved in FAO’s Dhaka Food Systems Project currently ongoing in Bangladesh, We have pulled some of our ideas an resources together in response to the queries raised around strengthening urban an peri-urban food systems for FNS.

Please find herewith our contribution from Wageningen University and research. In case of any question please fee free to reach out.

COMMENTS

A. Share your comments on the objectives and proposed content of this report as outlined above.

Do you find the proposed scope comprehensive to analyze and discuss the key issues concerning the role of urban and peri-urban food systems in achieving food security and nutrition? Are there any major gaps or omissions?

Response:

With reference to four years of comprehensive work covering four cities in the in the Dhaka Metropolitan area in the Support for modelling, planning and improving Dhaka’s food system (DFS) Project, led by FAO Bangladesh, and jointly implemented with Wageningen University and research (WUR), the defined scope touches upon on a set of highly relevant themes in the realm of strengthening food systems in urbanizing societies. However, the mode of scope articulation is at the same time quite generic and broad and seems to lack a bit a food systemic problem framing making more explicit what are the critical drivers and what are activities and outcomes of interest, in particularly reasoning from the ambition to consider the two interrelated phenomena of urbanisation and rural transformation in parallel. Highly interesting, but highly complex at the same time.

From our work in the DFS project, which has put into practice a responsive approach working with he national and city governments, a few emerging areas of interest relate to:

  • rethinking food system governance across scales. Who sets the boundaries to urban/peri-urban food systems, formally but also informally. Who is responsible for urban food policy? Who holds the process of food system governance?
  • A focus on sustainable healthy diets rather than on food and nutrition security, in line with earlier work of the HLPE on nutrition, also reflecting the growing body of research on planetary boundaries and the pressure of current food systems.
  • Addressing today urgencies next to applying long term planning: the development of planning approaches, processes, and tools to support anticipatory governance capacities building on foresight and scenario development techniques, necessary to understand dynamics across scales and timelines and thus building towards strategies to build an understanding on balancing  trade-offs, including who wins and who light loose, identifying synergies and to support decision making.

B. Share good practices and successful experiences on strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, including in the case of emergencies or conflicts.

Feel free to check out our website

https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/research-institutes/centre-for-development-innovation/show-cdi/improving-dhakas-food-system.htm

Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the following questions:

  1. What are the main bottlenecks hampering the contribution of urban and peri-urban food systems to food security and nutrition?

What we can share here are the lessons learned in the DFS project from initiating and facilitating city working groups and their road towards developing their city specific food charters.

https://edepot.wur.nl/575023:. Lotte Roosendaal, MSc1, Marion Herens, PhD1, Riti Herman-Mostert, MSc1, Jainal Abedin, MBA2. 2022. The contribution of City Working Groups to Dhaka’s Food System Governance: first experiences and insights - Case-based experiences from the Dhaka Metropolitan Area. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Wageningen

https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/consumers-health-and-food-safety-perceptions-in-the-dhaka-metropo: Harriëtte M. Snoek, Haki Pamuk, Ireen Raaijmakers, Valerie C.J. Janssen, Kulsum Begum Chowdhury, Syeda Mahsina Akter, Siet J. Sijtsema (2021): Consumers’ health and food safety perceptions in the Dhaka metropolitan area, Wageningen Economic Research,  Wageningen University & Research. Wageningen

2.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems be transformed and made more equitable and accessible both for food system actors and in terms of food security and nutrition outcomes?

  1. How can urban food supply chains, formal and informal, local and global, be made more resilient to ensure food security and nutrition within urban settings?

     
  2. What changes are needed in urban planning to better support all dimensions of food security – including support for human rights, agency and sustainability? Which are some of the measures that can strengthen the agency of local actors in urban and peri-urban food systems?

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3423; Charlotte Van Haren, Inder Kumar, Anouk Cormont, Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga, Bertram De Rooij, Syed Islam, Peter Verweij: The Role of Spatialisation and Spatial Planning in Improving Food Systems: Insights from the Fast-Growing City of Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3423; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043423

Also feel free to cCheck out our planning tools developed under the DFS project:

Interactive GiS Dhaka Food System: https://dhakafoodsystems.wenr.wur.nl/

Food system foresight Dashboard: https://shiny.wur.nl/foresight-dhaka-food-system/

Currently we are working on the process of transfer of tools to Bangladesh stakeholder

5.            How can national and municipal governments strengthen the potential for low-carbon, inclusive, relatively self-sufficient and resilient cities and towns to drive improved food security and nutrition in the wake of climate change and other crises?

6.            What are the most appropriate policies (and gaps in existing policies) along the rural-urban continuum to address issues of land tenure, urban expansion into farmland and the growing competition for natural resources?

Maybe this is of help:

https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/land-use-classification-bangladesh-combining-and-downscaling-exis

7.            How can urban and peri-urban food systems ensure that food and nutrition needs of specific groups of people, such as migrants, the internally-displaced, children, adolescent, etc., are met?

We have developed a Nutrition Strategy to strengthen nutrition sensitive action across all activities

https://edepot.wur.nl/566606: S. Bakker, L. Roosendaal, M. Herens, A. Mishra, M. Chowdhury (2021); Nutrition strategy for the Dhaka Food Systems Project, Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Wageningen

And a Gender strategy:  Riti Hermán Mostert, Janet Naco, Samprita Chakma, Md. Parvez, Melanie Kok, Harriette Snoek , Anouk Cormont, John Taylor (FAO Bangladesh), Jan Brouwers (2020): Dhaka Food System: gender analysis and strategy, Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Wageningen

8.            What are the potential benefits and challenges of territorial markets for strengthening food security and nutrition for urban populations?

9.            In what ways can the incorporation of climate resilient agricultural and circular economy practices in urban and peri-urban agriculture provide climate co-benefits for all and enhance climate resilience?

Still work in progress, but we have launched pilots on biogas digesters and black soldier fly rearing (reports forthcoming)

10.         How can citizens be engaged and empowered to drive inclusive, transparent, participatory processes for urban transformations, ensuring synergies and complementarity with city councils?

11.         Which experiences of urban communities to increase access to fresh food and healthy diets can inspire broader public policies?

We have, based on a range of consultations with a broad group of representatives in a dedicated foresight and scenario development process, drafted a Dhaka Food Agenda 2041with the ministry of local governance and the city corporations. This product is still up for feedback and validation with the GoB and will be launched in June 2023, therefore not to be made public at this stage. We could, however, make a request to send you a copy.

A report on the foresight process can be found: Riti Herman Mostert, Marion Herens, Lotte Roosendaal, Jim Woodhill, Jainal Abedin, Pedro Garzon Delvaux, Jessica Gomes, Nazrul Islam, Anowarul Islam, Sahidul Islam, Sharifa Parvin, Syed Islam, Mohammad Asif Mahfuz, Sajia Ahmed, Nuary Totan, Sk Mohibullah. With organising support from Silvi Razzaque and Abdullah Maimun (2022): Dhaka Food Agenda 2041 Foresight and Scenario development: workshop report. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. Wageningen

Kind regards/Kind regards,

Marion Herens, PhD

Sr. Advisor Food and Nutrition Security / programme manager