The document has done well to identify these 7 key (and interlinked) issues.
In response to the first prompt.
1) I believe that these 7 are well selected and address many of the key concerns going forward. However, I wonder if there is a need to address two issues more overtly - although they do thread through the text. The first is the role of large scale private sector actors and Big Philanthropy in shaping the food system and food system politics. It is implicit in the framing of the first key issue, but I believe it warrants far greater attention. Bene's 2022 paper addresses why this is essential (Béné, C., 2022. Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen–A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence. World Development, 154, p.105881.) And in the wake of the wide spread criticism of the UNFSS last year and the role of these actors, it seems important to address. This is even more evident in the work on nutrition transitions as per Phil Baker, Ron Moodie inter alia.
The second issue the explicit of inclusion of enhancing Agency of consumers and food systems actors within food systems transformation. This is implicit, paricuarly in key issue 5, but given the HLPE 2020 report framing, I would have expected a stronger focus on enhancing agency and on addressing factors that undermine agency.
In response to the second prompt
2) a) Key issue one needs to be more overt about the power of the corporate sector is shaping food systems and its politics (see above)
b) Within key issue 2 there could be a stronger presentation of the extent and nature of urban food insecurity (perhaps building on Tefft, J., Jonasova, M., Adjao, R. and Morgan, A., 2017. Food systems for an urbanizing world and perhaps focussing on dietary change e.g. Demmler, K.M., Ecker, O. and Qaim, M., 2017. Supermarket shopping and nutritional outcomes: a panel data analysis for urban Kenya (No. 858-2016-60246)..). Within the focus on urban there needs to be consideration of the drivers of transformation of urban food systems from an urban perspective. The inclusion of material on the importance of the informal retail sector is well noted, and yet the section fails to address where some the factors impacting this vital sector intersect with urban mandates and the urban political economy (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), pp.417-430., Battersby, J. and Muwowo, F., 2018. Planning and governance of food systems in Kitwe, Zambia: A case study of food retail space. In Urban food systems governance and poverty in African cities (pp. 128-140). Routledge.). The issue of the assumed absence of an urban food systems mandate is crucial here, and it may be worth engaging the New Urban Agenda's framing of the role of urban food systems in urban well being.
3) Given current experiences, I do wonder if the conflict key issue doesn't a require a module that focusses on the impact of conflict beyond national borders?
4) The framing of the climate policies section should be broadened to explicitly consider food system impacts of climate change, beyond the productive realm. Climage change will impact (is impacting) as points along the food supply chain, and impacting consumers ability to safely acess and store food. Indeed, it may be pushing consumers towards more shelf-stable highly processed foods. Sorry for self-citing again - but this may be useful: Battersby, J., 2013. Urban food security and climate change: a system of flows: In Climate Change, Assets and Food Security in Southern African Cities (pp. 46-67). Routledge. It is also worth being more explicit about how climate change impacts with affect different sectors within the food system differently, with smaller scale and informal sector actors being more likely to more severely impacted by weather events which destroy critical infrastrcture and resources. There is a need for a strong equity lens in this section.
5) Here it is important to note that there is a real challenge on accessing data on food sector employment outside of the agricultural sector. The disaggregation of ILO labour force data does not allow one to extrapolate food system specific data. This makes it really difficult to assess and monitor food based livelihoods and rights violations. Figure 3 in this paper illustrates some of the challenge of estimating livelihood data (Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K.R., Béné, C., Covic, N.M., Guarin, A., Herforth, A.W., Herrero, M., Sumaila, U.R., Aburto, N.J. and Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, M., 2021. Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy, 104, p.102163.) There is a long term need to modify modes of data collection. What cannot be measured, cannot be managed, and decisions about what is important to be measured need to be more transparent and consequences of failure to measure for effective governance and transformation must be flagged.
6) Within this key issue I think there needs to be more explicit engagement about how and why different forms of knowledge have been excluded and presentated as marginal in food system transformation processes. There was a lot written about this in the context of the UNFSS last year (Turnhout, E., Duncan, J., Candel, J., Maas, T.Y., Roodhof, A.M., DeClerck, F. and Watson, R.T., 2021. Do we need a new science-policy interface for food systems?. Science, 373(6559), pp.1093-1095.). This then returns to the critical questions of the power of large food corporations and Big Philanthropy in shaping the accepted knowledge systems informing policy, as well as questions of enhancing agency.
I look forward to seeing the next draft.
Dr. Jane Battersby