daviesa | Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Prof. Anna Davies

Trinity College Dublin

Ireland

25.01.2024

HLPF Consultation

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-benefits around food systems transformation relating to biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation
Attention to technology beyond that used for improving food production and commercial distribution logistics. For example, information and communications technologies which are increasingly widely adopted in global north and south for connecting people and organisations e.g. FoodCloud foodiverse platform pilot studies in technology-led solution to food waste reduction in Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana through food redistribution via food banks. Platform economies are more than just online food delivery platforms, they support a host of activities, tools and services across the food system from social dining (e.g. EatWith) through to urban harvesting.
Just transitions - It is great to see power given a high profile in the document. However, more could have been said about just transitions, and in particular inclusive participation and engagement with diverse publics around UPU food systems in terms of influence and development planning (e.g. fairer futuring). More explicit attention to how food security relates to food justice and sovereignty (perhaps around seed sovereignty) could also strengthen discussions around just transitions to sustainability.

Non-commercial food activities – given the dominance of capitalist approaches to food it is unsurprising to find the bulk of data in the report relates to these kinds of activities. However, the report also seems to equate commercial with formal and everything else as informal which is too blunt and is in danger of missing an important and potentially transformative set of activities as a result. Here activities would include grassroots, community-based collective actions around food such as community gardens, community seed banks, community kitchens, community-based surplus food redistribution activities (sometimes termed food sharing as an umbrella category). The landscape and impacts of such activities globally has not been established, explaining why attention to this group of activities taken collectively (e.g. as a sector) is relatively under-developed in the report, Nonetheless there are emergent projects which are beginning to map and assess the sustainability impacts of this sector in the UPU setting e.g. Horizon Europe Innovation Action CULTIVATE (focused on European UPU food sharing). Previous research e.g. SHARECITY, identified the existence of such activities across every continent using digital traces which itself would under report the actual scale and scope of activities. Additionally, the power of UPU residents should not be reduced to only shaping demand for commercial food products and services, they can also be agents for growing food individually (home gardening, allotments etc.) or collectively (e.g. community gardens, co-ops, etc.) and redistributing food.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments below are made on a chapter by chapter basis:

Introduction

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

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

Tension in Key Messages

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

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

Section 1.1

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

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

Sec 1.3.2

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

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

Agency is closely associated with the Right to Food.

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2

Important to mention intersectional inequalities

Chapter 3

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

3.4.1

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4

4.3.1

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

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

Chapter 5

5.2

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

5.3.2

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

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

5.4.3

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

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

Chapter 6

6.2.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

…paramount to fund a dedicated food team

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

6.5.3

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

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

6.5.6

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

See the attachments:

Response to HLPE Consultation_Anna Davies

This member contributed to:

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

Consultation
06.12.2023 - 26.01.2024
- Prof. Anna Davies
  
  Trinity College Dublin
  
  Ireland
  
  25.01.2024
  HLPF Consultation
  
  Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation – V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19
  
  Response: Anna Davies, PhD, FTCD, MRIA, FISC
  
  Introduction
  
  This is a timely and comprehensive report addressing urgent issues. In particular flagging the importance of going beyond a supply-side focus which has dominated agri-food debates historically. Increasing the prominence of UPU landscapes will be crucial in any just transition to sustainable food systems. Usefully, it flags the internally and externally uneven power of urban areas to shape food systems. This nuanced reading of power and place is significant and welcome, both in relation to the differential power of urban governments in shaping urban food systems in different places and in terms of the differential power of particular constituents within a specific urban area. The report emphasises the role of spatial planning, provision of basic infrastructural services, environmental health policies and local economic development policy, in shaping UPU food security and food systems, and makes the important point that these practices are rarely acknowledged as food policy but should be. The report also recognises that attending to food availability and economic accessibility are necessary, but alone insufficient to ensure urban food security and nutrition, and that food systems designed to meet this need alone are damaging human and planetary health. However, while the inclusion of food security is hugely welcome, the report could do with more attention to the non-human elements and how these affect food security and nutrition, such as biodiversity and climate change.
  
  In this response to the Zero Draft I provide below comments on the pre-set questions and following this additional commentary of selected sections of the report. These are intended to strengthen the report and I hope these are useful in future iterations.
  
  1. Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems? Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers? Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?
  
  The framework provides an effective means of organising the key issues which are complex and interconnected. At present guidance is high level so is likely to be of limited practical help for policy makers on a day-to-day scale, but it is impossible to provide practical guidance at this level in a global study due to the significance of historical, cultural, economic, regulatory, social and other factors. Contexts in which interventions (such as new policy developments, reconfiguration of policy etc.) are made are also constantly evolving. One size will not fit all. Even once developed with context in mind an intervention will need to be further adapted to ever changing contexts. I do not have any examples where the proposed conceptual framework has been operationalised in toto. I would be surprised if any exist given the fragmented nature of UPU food governance.
  
  2. The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability. Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in urban and peri-urban food systems?
  
  This broader definition is important and usefully articulated in the report. There is considerable material presented around some dimensions (e.g. availability, access), less in relation to sustainability, which itself has multiple dimensions. Expanding and strengthening attention to sustainability dimensions would be useful, particularly in relation to climate change and biodiversity components and perhaps also care and wellbeing.
  
  3. Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered? Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report? Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?
  
  The report is extremely thorough in mapping existing data around many trends/variables/elements. I’m not sure there is anything ‘missing’ per se. However, the overall impression is that elements/initiatives/alternative approaches are evaluated against their success to date within the current (e.g. unsustainable) system. There is the danger then of unintended consequences which may dismiss currently niche, small-scale, emergent, novel, non-mainstream activities because of their limited success to date, within this flawed system. The report indicates limitations of some emergent and alternative mechanisms but these limitations arise from within an unreconstructed and unsustainable urban food system context – as a result it is unsurprising that they do not fair well. This should not be a reason to discount them when transitioning to more sustainable food systems where their full impact and value (e.g. beyond financial value) may be better recognised.
  
  The report is primarily focused on lower income contexts, which is well-justified in terms of pressures around food security and nutrition but this focus may miss opportunities for highlighting alternative possibilities.
  
  The following issues are mentioned in passing, but remain under-developed compared to other elements. This may be because data is missing, unavailable, incomparable however it is possible to use this report to call for more and better data around key elements such as:
  
  Co-benefits around food systems transformation relating to biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation
  
  Attention to technology beyond that used for improving food production and commercial distribution logistics. For example, information and communications technologies which are increasingly widely adopted in global north and south for connecting people and organisations e.g. FoodCloud foodiverse platform pilot studies in technology-led solution to food waste reduction in Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana through food redistribution via food banks. Platform economies are more than just online food delivery platforms, they support a host of activities, tools and services across the food system from social dining (e.g. EatWith) through to urban harvesting.
  
  Just transitions - It is great to see power given a high profile in the document. However, more could have been said about just transitions, and in particular inclusive participation and engagement with diverse publics around UPU food systems in terms of influence and development planning (e.g. fairer futuring). More explicit attention to how food security relates to food justice and sovereignty (perhaps around seed sovereignty) could also strengthen discussions around just transitions to sustainability.
  
  Non-commercial food activities – given the dominance of capitalist approaches to food it is unsurprising to find the bulk of data in the report relates to these kinds of activities. However, the report also seems to equate commercial with formal and everything else as informal which is too blunt and is in danger of missing an important and potentially transformative set of activities as a result. Here activities would include grassroots, community-based collective actions around food such as community gardens, community seed banks, community kitchens, community-based surplus food redistribution activities (sometimes termed food sharing as an umbrella category). The landscape and impacts of such activities globally has not been established, explaining why attention to this group of activities taken collectively (e.g. as a sector) is relatively under-developed in the report, Nonetheless there are emergent projects which are beginning to map and assess the sustainability impacts of this sector in the UPU setting e.g. Horizon Europe Innovation Action CULTIVATE (focused on European UPU food sharing). Previous research e.g. SHARECITY, identified the existence of such activities across every continent using digital traces which itself would under report the actual scale and scope of activities. Additionally, the power of UPU residents should not be reduced to only shaping demand for commercial food products and services, they can also be agents for growing food individually (home gardening, allotments etc.) or collectively (e.g. community gardens, co-ops, etc.) and redistributing food.
  
  4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included? Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?
  
  This Handbook provides comprehensive coverage of a range of urban food governance dimensions including sections on history, practices, theories and futures:
  
  Moragues-Faus, A., Clark, J. K., Battersby, J., & Davies, A. (2022). Towards Urban Food Governance for More Sustainable and Just Futures. In Routledge Handbook of Urban Food Governance (pp. 1- 19). Routledge.
  
  Relating to matters of public participation and futuring around urban food (mentioned in point 3 above):
  
  Fitzgerald, L. M., & Davies, A. R. (2022). Creating fairer futures for sustainability transitions. Geography Compass, 16(10), e12662.
  
  Davies, A. R., Cretella, A., & Franck, V. (2019). Food sharing initiatives and food democracy: Practice and policy in three European cities. Politics and Governance, 7(4), 8-20.
  
  Relating to non-commercial UPU food initiatives (mentioned in point 3 above):
  
  Davies, A. R. (2019). Urban food sharing: Rules, tools and networks (p. 124). Policy Press
  
  Davies, A. R., Edwards, F., Marovelli, B., Morrow, O., Rut, M., & Weymes, M. (2017). Making visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum, 86, 136-149
  
  Weymes, M., & Davies, A. R. (2019). [Re] Valuing Surplus: Transitions, technologies and tensions in redistributing prepared food in San Francisco. Geoforum, 99, 160-169.
  
  Marovelli, B. (2019). Cooking and eating together in London: Food sharing initiatives as collective spaces of encounter. Geoforum, 99, 190-201.
  
  Morrow, O., & Davies, A. (2022). Creating careful circularities: community composting in New York City. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 47(2), 529-546.
  
  Jackson, P., Rivera Ferre, M. G., Candel, J., Davies, A., Derani, C., de Vries, H., ... & Thøgersen, J. (2021). Food as a commodity, human right or common good. Nature Food, 2(3), 132-134
  
  Davies, A. R., Rut, M., & Feeney, J. K. (2022). Seeds of change? Social practices of urban community seed sharing initiatives for just transitions to sustainability. Local Environment, 27(6), 784- 799
  
  Mackenzie, S. G., & Davies, A. R. (2022). Assessing the sustainability impacts of food sharing initiatives: User testing The Toolshed SIA. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 807690.
  
  Mackenzie, S. G., & Davies, A. R. (2019). SHARE IT: Co-designing a sustainability impact assessment framework for urban food sharing initiatives. Environmental impact assessment review, 79, 106300
  
  Relating to use of ICT/platform economies in UPU food systems (mentioned in point 3 above):
  
  Davies, A. R., Donald, B., Gray, M., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2017). Sharing economies: moving beyond binaries in a digital age. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(2), 209-230
  
  5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?
  
  No, although the extent of historical context could be revisited and the writing tightened with each chapter having a summary of key points upfront in each perhaps.
  
  6. Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:
  
  a) evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;
  
  b) efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;
  
  c) efforts made to enhance the right to food in urban and peri-urban settings;
  
  d) examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production; and
  
  e) examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems.
  
  Really need to define what is meant by ‘success’ here and the kind of metrics could be used. Many of the references to non-commercial initiatives listed above might be considered successful in non- financial sustainability terms (e.g. social, educational, environmental etc.). Other ‘successful’ initiatives might have been negatively affected by shifting or uneven power relations within particular areas, so their success or failure may not be related to their impacts or potential but other exogenous issues due to wider politics and conditions.
  
  Comments below are made on a chapter by chapter basis:
  
  Introduction
  
  Some of these are visible in key message Sec 1 but deserve greater attention in the body of the document.
  
  This ‘urbanization of poverty’ becomes food insecurity as the urban poor spend a large amount of their income on food and bear the cost of urban living.
  
  Urban and peri-urban food systems have historically been oriented towards meeting availability and affordability of foods for urban populations. Urban and peri-urban food systems are currently unsustainable, unjust, nutritionally unbalanced, and prone to shocks.
  
  As much as there are challenges, urbanization also provides opportunities for livelihoods, improved diets and increased agency.
  
  Tension in Key Messages
  
  Urban and peri-urban food systems have historically been oriented towards meeting availability and affordability of foods for urban populations. Urban and peri-urban food systems are currently unsustainable, unjust, nutritionally unbalanced, and prone to shocks.
  
  There is an urgent need for interventions to strengthen food security and nutrition within urban and peri-urban food systems and reorient them to improve access and diet quality. Interventions should be guided by an understanding of the interactions between food security and nutrition, food systems, governance processes, and urbanization.
  
  The above two key messages seem to be in slight tension – the first identifies the historical focus and identifies the limitations of this approach. The second still focuses on access with the added ‘quality’ however without explicitly recognising uneven patterns of power and agency within UPU areas this is unlikely to transform many of the current limitations.
  
  Section 1.1
  
  Many future urban residents, predominantly in Africa and Asia, will be living in cities and peri-urban areas as yet unbuilt. The decisions made around urban food systems and urban development today lock in path dependencies that shape food security trajectories for future generations (Pieterse et al., 2018).
  
  This is a key point which relates to governance processes and uneven participation in and influence on planning developments around food and urban spaces. Processes of ‘fairer futuring’ (Fitzgerald & Davies, 2022) are required.
  
  Sec 1.3.2
  
  The stability dimension in urban areas needs to extend beyond considering the stable supply of foods and stable food prices, to consider the broader challenges of instability of livelihoods and employment and political instability that are often associated with U-PU areas.
  
  Also important to recognise climate instability and impacts of biodiversity loss on stability in relation to FSN
  
  Agency is closely associated with the Right to Food.
  
  This needs unpacking further to articulate how exactly agency is related to the Right to Food. This is unclear at present.
  
  The proximity of urban and peri-urban residents to the local state provides opportunities to exercise agency in food systems governance
  
  This is a substantial assumption made without reference to evidence. Proximity does not necessarily equate to the ability to exercise agency. Reference to evidence should be added to create a more robust argument here.
  
  Within the U-PU FSN it is essential to consider sustainability beyond sustainable production, but to link it to sustainable consumption and examine how unsustainable practices across food systems, urban systems and related systems interact to shape FSN outcomes
  
  This is essential in UPU areas but also beyond them
  
  Explicit mention should be made here about matters of food waste and surplus food redistribution which reside outside production and consumption. Indeed, reference to circular food systems, regenerative production, reuse, food sharing would be beneficial here, recognising how they can support greater resilience in UPU areas.
  
  Chapter 2
  
  Important to mention intersectional inequalities
  
  Chapter 3
  
  Check referencing to Figures in this chapter e.g. 3.1 and 3.3
  
  3.4.1
  
  The use of the term “Food choice” can be problematic if it is reduced to the ABC model (attitudes lead to behaviours which ultimately lead to choices) of behaviour change.
  
  More could be added around food culture to this section and to move beyond simple agency- structure dualism as this can be misinterpreted in particular with respect to relationality.
  
  What about food sovereignty? While 90% of food is purchased in urban areas it is worth questioning whether more should be done to support growing within urban areas.
  
  Worth referencing community/grassroot-led food initiatives such as those collated under urban food sharing initiatives by Davies (2019) in terms of fostering food resilience in UPU in terms of production, consumption, surplus food redistribution and food waste management. There is an example given termed ‘Self-help groups’ that ‘have been shown to provide food security resilience in rural India (Demont, 2022).
  
  Chapter 4
  
  4.3.1
  
  Waste management should also be addressed with better coordination with food banks – although this approach has been frequently critiqued (e.g. Riches, 2018) the use of technological applications for data management, and the transformation of such waste into animal feed (UNEP DTU Partnership and United Nations Environment Programme, 2021; Latka et al., 2022; FAO, 2011).
  
  Edible surplus food need not only be redistributed to ‘food banks’
  
  Chapter 5
  
  5.2
  
  Power – what about power by inaction? This might be due to lack of will, resources for implementation, monitoring etc.
  
  5.3.2
  
  In fact, urban dwellers are often important partners, developing diverse activities as citizens which include for example participation in the development or implementation of urban food policies and the development of grass-root initiatives in the food realm from urban gardens to surplus food redistribution
  
  This is an important point but there is no evidence provided to back it up. There are many publications illustrating this, albeit primarily examining higher income cities (Davies et al., 2017; Davies 2019)
  
  5.4.3
  
  …there remains insufficient evidence about whether these innovations make a difference and how. For example, both New York City and Brighton (UK) have been viewed as pioneers in urban food policy innovations and yet, their indicators on urban food security and nutrition have not substantially improved. This either suggests that such innovations have been divorced from other binding constraints to transforming urban food systems or that such innovations might not have had sufficient time to demonstrate impact. Learning from deviant cases—ones where the outcome contradicts the original expectation—is key to help advance thinking about whether and how multistakeholder and multi-sectoral approaches concretely affect food and nutrition outcomes
  
  There is an assumption in this paragraph that a lack of evidence suggests a lack of impact. While this might be the case, it is impossible to know what their food security and nutrition rates would have been if those innovations hadn’t taken place. The existence of a policy council does not mean that the policy council is itself powerful within the governing architecture.
  
  Chapter 6
  
  6.2.2
  
  …developing inclusive participatory processes that embed anticipatory governance into planning exercises
  
  This is what to do, but actors /institutions need information on how to do this? See Fitzgerald and Davies (2022)
  
  … there is a need to understand better the different powers at play and how they can be leveraged to strengthen urban food systems and deliver food and nutrition security
  
  Again an admirable principle but guidance on how to do this and how to leverage is needed
  
  … Just as important as the quality of public service is uneven strength and activities of civil society
  
  This is important but not really reflected in preceding chapters. The document could do with more evidence around civil society activities around food e.g. (Davies, 2019)
  
  …paramount to fund a dedicated food team
  
  Again providing guidance on how to do this would be helpful in locations where they don’t exist and there’s no food policy council etc.
  
  6.5.3
  
  There are also self-organised and autonomous initiatives addressing inequalities and redistributing resources to strengthen urban and peri-urban food and nutrition security. These different forms of collective action can take many different forms and coalesce around a variety of projects, from seed swaps to community fridges or collective kitchens.
  
  This statement deserves evidencing e.g. Marovelli (2019); Weymes and Davies (2019); Davies (2019); Davies et al (2022); Davies et al (2019); Morrow and Davies (2022)
  
  6.5.6
  
  Reference is made to behaviour change interventions but without evidence of impact being provided. These should be added. Also deserves some comment on the assumptions within these behaviour change interventions which predominantly lie in the information deficit model of change which has been demonstrated to have limited impact when focused on individuals and in the absence of consideration of wider factors affecting practices.
  - expand to read more
  - read on a separate page
  See the attachments:
  
  Response to HLPE Consultation_Anna Davies