Dear editorial team,
Thank you for the opportunity to engage in this process. The below reflections and inputs are provided on behalf of the Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE) project that is supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and implemented in 2 secondary cities in each of the countries Bangladesh, Kenya and Rwanda, with support of a Swiss public private partnership.
Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?
We appreciate the well-structured, effective framework proposed in the V0 draft, but wonder about the possibility to further introduce the value chain dimensions such as production, processing, transportation, consumption, but also governance into the framework. While they are deeply discussed in the V0 draft, they are, as to our understanding, not sufficiently reflected in the framework per se.
We particularly appreciate the strong (and visual) importance given to urban contexts and listing of factors influencing the urban context as we understand the sub-national (city) level as a key driver and potential entry point for sustainable food system transformation and tackling of malnutrition. This potential as an entry point could be further emphasized even though already strongly mentioned in the current V0 draft.
Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?
See above, a more stringent expression of the different activity fields where the different variables of the framework have to be reflected in within the value chain, might make the framework better understandable for policymakers.
Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?
While literature remains scarce, we are convinced that (emerging) literature discussing the successes of food policy councils as for example in Bambilor, Senegal, could further illustrate and facilitation of the operationalization of the conceptual framework.
A report by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and the city of Zurich assessing the food flows in Zurich, Switzerland, is a step to better understand Urban- Peri-Urban food systems in line with the proposed framework, but without fully implementing derived activities: Landert, J.; Vukotic, F.; Halter, L.; Wolfgramm, B.; Schleiffer, M.; Haupt, C.; Moschitz, H, 2021: Was isst Zürich? Handlungsspielräume auf lokaler Ebene zur Förderung einer nachhaltigen Ernährung, Schlussbericht (in German).
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 U-PU food systems?
The V0 draft prominently relays on the six dimensions of food security and strongly connects them to the Urban-Peri-Urban (U-PU) food system principles, including, within the conceptual framework. Further elaboration of the empowering à agency match and principle / dimension in the context of U-PU might be helpful.
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?
We acknowledge the broad inclusiveness of the V0 draft, discussing principles from a) productive and prosperous, b) generative, c) equitable, d) healthy & nutritious, e) diverse & resilient, and f) empowering in detail and without leaving out any of the steps in the value chains. We would appreciate further discussion and guidance on how to deal with imports into the U-PU food system that make up an important share in several contexts. Digitalization and its potential could be another important topic to quickly mention in this context.
Furthermore, we do feel (policies that address) poverty and inequality, build resilience and social inclusion and foster sustainable livelihoods, including through nutrition supported social assistance programs are not sufficiently addressed in the current V0 draft. Furthermore, for us the fact that in many secondary cities in LMIC, most citizens are still having access to farmland (even if only a few acres) and are still partly self-sustaining might be further highlighted in the report.
Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?
See above, we acknowledge the distribution of the topics in the V0 draft, particularly the high importance given to food systems governance incl. food policy councils and city networks. The concept of food system champions and respective discussion could further supplement these sections.
While the different trading channels such as market, street vendors, supermarkets are adequately discussed we would recommend to also include a big picture on food produce trade in U-PU areas per se, including broader discussion of import / export and related fields.
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?
We recommend to expand the section on territorial markets and their societal importance and produce flows (incl. how often produce changes hands to reach city markets and how they are competing with the fresh produce) by further discussing market mechanisms and interactions that could be key, incl. as for example per the following literature:
Nordhagen S., Lee J., Monterrosa E., Onuigbo-Chatta N., Okoruva A., Lambertini E., and Pelto GH (2023). Where supply and demand meet: how consumer and vendor interactions create a market, a Nigerian example. Food Security https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01397-x
FAO. 2023. Mapping of territorial markets - Methodology and guidelines for participatory data collection. 3rd ed., Rome: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb9484en AND respective country reports
Furthermore, we recommend to introduce a short section on the potential of digitalization into the report, e.g. as per:
Speich C., Pannatier M., Berlin R., Freymond M., Monroy-Gomez J., Chigemezu Nwokoro C. et al. (2023). The potential of digital tools to foster production, and thus availability, of healthy diets for city dwellers in secondary cities. E3S Web of Conferences 418; https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202341805001
Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?
We would like to highlight that several sections in chapter 6 are repetitions of chapter 5 – a combination of chapters 5 and 6 into one single chapter might better combine topics of policy development and respective institutions and stakeholders involved in these developments and discussions. A re-ordering of chapter 5 and 6 to be placed before the large chapter 4 discussing the key components of value chains and food system principles in detail might be considered.
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;
Vegetables go to School initiative: https://avrdc.org/download/publications/policy-briefs/REV1_VGTS-Policy-Paper_6pagesA4_in-sequence.pdf
Wasike et al., 2018 Linking Farmers, Indigenous Vegetables and Schools to Improve Diets and Nutrition in Busia County, Kenya
efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;
Bryan E. and Mekonnen D. (2023). Does small-scale irrigation provide a pathway to women’s empowerment? Lessons from Northern Ghana. Journal of Rural Studies 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.035
Dr. Helen PRYTHERCH