Ana Puhac
Territorial markets, food retail environments, urban food systems
Territorial markets, food retail environments, urban food systems
As a FAO-ESN team, we would like to contribute to the report with a reference to our first-hand data collection on 60 territorial markets in 8 countries, carried out over the past year. The initiative was done using FAO methodology for mapping of territorial markets, which was developed as a direct response to 2016 CFS policy recommendations "Connecting Smallholders to Markets", referring to the need to collect comprehensive data on formal and informal markets, rural and urban and linked to local, national and regional food systems.
The initiative produced a valuable set of data on both retailers and consumers who attend these local, territorial markets, and the data can be disaggregated by gender, age, different food groups (and more). Gender inclusion is a key aspect in the methodology, because it also offers an interpretive tool - a synthetic indicator on Gender Inclusion. This indicator measures how inclusive a market is to women compared to men, by taking into consideration the gender income gap of the market retailers, and the gap between men and women retailers who do not have access to financial services.
The whole methodology is designed to inform policy-making processes that seek strategic entry points in the food systems for improving local diets and nutrition. We strongly believe that territorial markets represent this crucial entry point for working on the systemic change for increasing availability, access and desirability of healthy and diversified foods for low-income consumers.
In the attachment we are sharing a draft of a thematic brief titled “Territorial markets for women’s economic inclusion” (to be published soon by FAO) with gender-focused data analysis from the mapped markets in 3 countries. We do have more gender-specific data and can develop a more elaborative report if you consider this initiative as a valuable reference for the report.
Corinna Hawkes
Dear Paola,
please find the comments made by the FAO Urban Taskteam:
1.The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020).
a) Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?
While the current framework itself is fine, there are comment we would like to make:
b) Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?
This largely depends upon the policy makers and what they are looking to implement, but it was highlighted that if we imagine for example, policymakers being assigned to develop a food strategy at the local level, that they could struggle to understand the framework.
With regard to reaching policymakers for the document as a whole, in terms of format and language, consider making the writing style less academic, and including more practical examples and guiding diagrams and boxes that summarize the problematic. If this is not possible, consider developing a more dedicated and succinct version of the product, potentially based on Chapter 6 and the forthcoming Chapter 7, to address policymakers more effectively and acknowledge the complexity of the framework and its potential difficulty for local authority policymakers.
We recognize these comments may appear contradictory to the suggestions above of ensuring a broader approach is taken to understanding food security and nutrition, but believe this could be handled in how the framework is presented.
c) Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?
We agree that incorporating more practical examples is key, and also examples that illustrate diversity of U-PU systems. These examples can inspire policymakers by showcasing experiences from different cities. Especially in Chapter 5, you could reduce the current extensive discussion to include robust discussion on practical steps and strategies for implementation, to emphasize action and implementation. Likewise, you can consider illustrating Section 1.4 with more examples, similar to the approach in the next chapters, to make it more accessible and practical for policymakers.
Country: Bangladesh (project reference: OSRO/BGD/008/WFP ) Title: Food security for households most affected by the COVID-19 crisis in at-risk low-income urban areas. Objective: To address the food security needs of selected beneficiaries in at-risk low-income urban areas of Dhaka and smaller urban municipalities near Dhaka, with a focus on establishing linkages with local smallholder farmers in semi-rural and rural areas of Dhaka North City Corporation. Link to the story (under the sub-title ‘Getting city farmers to grow and eat more vegetables)
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.
The 'utilization' and 'stabilization' dimensions are the least addressed, thus it is suggested to give more attention to these dimensions in the report. It would be helpful to explain/define what these dimensions concretely means in the context of UPFS, and clarify the connection between food safety, dietary diversity, and ‘utilization’ dimension. Additionally, further elaboration on the 'agency' dimension is crucial, particularly as it is interconnected with addressing inequalities, a significant driver of disparity. You can provide examples of strategies that enhance awareness and agency, enabling these communities to actively shape their own food security and well-being. Connect examples with case studies rather than academic papers for a more practical illustration, such as highlighting how self-help groups in rural India and structures like Stokvels in South Africa and Chamas in Kenya contribute to long-term food security outcomes for U-PU residents.
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?
a) Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report?
Consider incorporating more evidence and examples of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban food systems to strengthen the resilience aspect. Acknowledge the urgent need to reinforce resilience in the face of various shocks, including climate-related events, pandemics, and global economic crises. Emphasize the vulnerability of both urban and periurban food systems, disrupted supply chains, and the consequent impact on urban food security.
Links:
For Chapters 2 and 3, particularly Sections 2.4 and 3.2, consider a broader consideration of contexts, specifically incorporating discussions on fragile settings and protracted food crisis situations. Highlight opportunities that emerge when individuals with rural food and agriculture livelihoods are displaced or migrate to cities, presenting unique possibilities for food systems and related urban contexts.
In Chapters 5, 6, and 7, include risk-sensitive policies and practices, as urban and peri-urban areas face higher exposure and vulnerabilities. Develop risk-informed and shock-responsive social protection schemes, nature-based solutions, and risk-proofed infrastructures and services to enhance the resilience and sustainability of urban food systems.
Highlight the critical and insufficiently presented points for how U-PU food systems could reduce poverty and inequalities. Emphasize aspects like greater job creation, decent working conditions, improved access to social services, and community empowerment in urban settings.
It is recommended to underscore the crucial role of local governments in advancing sustainable urban food systems, and strategies that enhance the recognition of local governments in global, regional, and national food systems agendas should be included.
Ecosystem services from UPA have been well described, but there is one service that has not been mentioned, and that is the capacity of agricultural areas to allow water to infiltrate aquifers. In the case of the city of Abidjan for example, agricultural fields allow water infiltration, which prevents saline water in the aquifer (consequence of the sea level rise).
b) Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?
4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?
a) Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?
5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?
It would be good to differentiate and establish clearer links, especially regarding food environment factors, as there appears to be potential overlap between certain points in sections 3.4 and 4.2.
We also have some additional comments about the structure of the document
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;
Objective: Contribute significantly to the sustainable food and agricultural livelihood security of rural and peri-urban populations in Ninevah Governorate.
Objective: Strengthen urban and rural resilience and conditions for recovery by enhancing the capacity of local authorities, civil society, and communities to develop evidence-based policies and resilience programs.
*Restoring livelihoods of vulnerable populations to catastrophic food and nutrition insecurity in BAY*
*Emergency food security and livelihood assistance to conflict-affected populations in Northeast Nigeria*
*Improved production, availability, and access to nutritious food for vulnerable IDPs, returnees, and host communities*
Common focus: Target populations with limited access to land, providing inputs for urban and peri-urban gardening to diversify diets and generate income.
Output 3: Households and producer groups supported to diversify and enhance livelihoods for improved income.
Activities involve working with communities in each district to identify options for diversification in rural, peri-urban, and urban areas, particularly focusing on women's roles and minimizing risks. Examples include honey/beekeeping, poultry-raising, dairy production, and vegetable and fruit gardening.
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.
Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQLLhzhgReY
Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuyI9D1698o&t=141s