Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

HLPF Consultation

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Chapter 6

6.2.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

…paramount to fund a dedicated food team

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

6.5.3

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

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

6.5.6

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

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

1. Conceptual framework

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

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

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

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

Dear HLPE-FSN team,

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

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

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

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

1. We find the conceptual framework and broader definition of FSN to be very useful and effective. However, as is rightly asked, the practical guidance of working with all elements, system principles and directions will require a lot of effort and good examples. This includes references to existing work of cities (MUFPP), on multi actor initiatives (councils, food labs), existing depositories (including RUAF, FoodActionCities, etc.).
   
    
2. Others have noted that the report is very SDG2 centric. While this is understandable given the CFS brief, it should be clear that FSN is the end-game and other outcomes of the food system – such as economic development and livelihoods, and climate resilience – ultimately impact FSN. As such, it is important for policy makers to carefully examine all potential trade-offs of a proposed intervention. For example, it is rightly stated to extend the right to food to other rights, including the right to City. This links directly to SDG 11, and others. Another example, an initiative to control food prices to support access to affordable food supports FSN for some, but may also impact the livelihood of some other actors, meaning they are more likely to experience poverty and food insecurity. Box 6.1 may be a good place to include this. 

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

1. There is considerable attention to ‘foodsheds’, yet this is a rather outmoded conceptualisation that represents cities as having an extractive relationship with surrounding rural areas that provide their food needs. More recent approaches to territorialisation and city region food systems understand that urban areas are embedded in their geographical and regional context, and there are multi-directional flows of people, goods, services, economic value and eco-systems services across the urban-rural continuum. This is important for ensuring that urban food systems both help meet the food needs of urban areas and promote rural development, including development of food system activities in smaller towns and secondary cities in the vicinity of a larger urban areas, and serving as a multifunctional level for change (as well as supporting FSN).  
   
   
   
   As well as, or instead of, the figure showing overlapping foodsheds, it may be useful to depict various different forms of ‘city region’, which ‘not only refers to megacities and the immediate rural and agricultural areas surrounding them, but also to small and medium-sized towns that link remote small-scale producers and their agricultural value chains to urban centres and markets. City regions can also be defined as a network of towns that collaborate within a territory over economic, social or environmental assets, interests and issues.’ (FAO, 2023, p. 5 – includes helpful diagram). The diversity of different types/characters of food territories around cities and towns of all sizes and configurations stands opposed to the apparent critique of various programmes that support territorialisation (the City Region Food System Programme, the Urban Food Agenda, the Green Cities Initiative) as a ‘normative notion of a localised foodshed’ (p. 63). 
   
   
   
   Moreover, highlighting the localisation priority of the foodshed concept, whilst citing it as the inspiration behind other (more evolved) conceptualisations of territorialisation, risks tarring them all with a brush of ‘defensive localism’. For the city region food system approach, this is explicitly not the intention: 
   
   
   
   ‘At its root, a city region food system approach proposes that we should work to strengthen and improve the quality of the connections between urban areas and their rural hinterlands and between consumers and nearby food producers, in order to realise a suite of social, economic and environmental benefits. However, it is not a case of unquestioning localism. Rather, it is about creating a framework for conscious food governance that takes territoriality into account, recognising that cities exist within a specific geography and that decisions about food operate across an urban-rural continuum. It recognises the central role of the private sector in the food system, but is based on the understanding that public goods will not be delivered by market forces alone, and that greater transparency and democratic participation are prerequisites. (Jennings et al. 2015: 28)
   
    
2. The inclusion of gender is very welcome (p. 26 and p68). It would be helpful to acknowledge that people of all genders can be impacted by gender-related inequalities – for example, men and boys may face inequalities in areas like educational attainment, dropout rates, criminal activities, violence, and employment. Men and boys are also critical to addressing gender issues facing women in the food system  through a whole society approach to addressing cultural norms.
   
   
   
   On p. 26, the discussion of gender is followed by a paragraph on intersectionality. It would be helpful to link these explicitly, to show that the lived experiences of people of different genders are impacted by other factors constituting their identity (e.g. race, class, ethnicity, education, etc). Please see RUAF, 2020. 
   
    
3. There is no mention of the role of youth in urban food systems. As expressed in HLPE Report no. 16, 2021, it is imperative that initiatives to strengthen urban food systems actively engage youth, with young people playing a leadership role. This includes enabling youth participation in urban food systems governance, demonstrating economic opportunities for young people throughout the food system (where perceptions, particularly of farming, are negative), and addressing narratives that shape consumption preferences that favour ultra processed, ‘fast’ food and shun traditional diets. Failure to engage young people in the food system will have significant impacts on FSN in the future, with ageing farming populations and migration of  youth to cities in search of non-farming livelihoods – alongside rapidly growing urban populations requiring food. 
   
    
4. The HLPE-FSN 0-draft Report does not cover at all or adequately cover the following topics related to UPA: 
   
   
   
   It does not cover Circular Economy and safe wastewater reuse in urban and peri-urban areas. If you search for wastewater in the doc, almost all the hits are in the reference section. UPA thrives on resources that can be easily recovered in safe ways to close multiple nutrient and water loops.
   
   
   
   It does not adequately cover issues around food safety of UPA products. There is a section/subsection 4.5.1.2 on Food Safety concerns but the section can be expanded to cover all aspects of safety concerns.
   
   
   
   Issues on food nutrition come with quality of UPA products at harvest and post-harvest. This means that urban and peri – urban areas’ capacity to store products to maintain nutritional value/quality is of utmost importance. This must be addressed as urbanisation increases and cities become bigger.
   
    
5. With regard to embedding food strategies and overcoming electoral change, the paragraph on page 79 suggests that, if the right lessons are learned, ‘backtracking’ following political shifts can be avoided. This may be so, but there are also examples where food systems work has been embedded into the municipality for decades, yet still is disrupted by political change. Toronto is a clear example. 
   
    
6. Warnings against uncritically importing food systems work from the Global North to the Global South due to contextual specificities are very important (p. 83). It would be helpful to go further and note that direct transfer between contexts – often also between two cities in the Global North – is not always possible because of different context and governance conditions. Thus, deep understanding of context is vital, as well as what can be done, and how to adapt examples from elsewhere. 

In response to question 5 (case studies)

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

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

Other 

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

References: 

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

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

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

1. Respecto a la Concepción:

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

2. Respecto a las dimensiones de la seguridad alimentaria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear HLPE-FSN,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Anna Rosales

Senior Director Nutrition and Government Affairs, Institute of Food Technologists

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you and all the best,

Emily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear colleagues,

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

Astrid Epp

Alternate Permanent Representative

General remarks:

• Initiatives for a stronger “city-rural area-dialogue”, as e.g. food policy councils in many cities, which, starting from the urban centres, seek connections to the sur- rounding peri-urban producers.
• Project “edible cities” as a nature-based solution: https://www.ioer.de/en/pro- jects/edible-cities

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

• Example of food sharing movement to reduce food waste with over 500,000 users in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and other European countries who campaign against the careless use of resources and for a sustainable food system through saving and distributing food locally in private households and businesses, engaging in dialogs with politicians and educating consumers as well as raising awareness (https://food- sharing.de/). Successful examples of urban farming exists for producing mushrooms on coffee grounds in urban areas in the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, clos- ing nutrition cycles and reducing food waste (https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel- stadt/gemuse-vom-dach-sind-von-gestern-jetzt-kommen-die-stadt-pilze- ld.1732437). Examples from England and Germany also show the use of food waste (toast ends or old bread) for producing beer ( https://www.toastbrewing.com/about- us ; https://www.geo.de/wissen/ernaehrung/brauereien-brauen-bier-aus-altem- brot-30606326.html).

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

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