Dr. Ann Trevenen-Jones
![](https://assets.fsnforum.fao.org/public/styles/thumbnail_130/public/default_images/person.png?itok=IuY45UU5)
Dear FSN Moderator and the HLPE team, thank-you for the opportunity to provide inputs during this scoping phase. My notes can be found below. Looking forward to the report.
Best Dr. A Trevenen-Jones
The outline scope of the report indicates a much-needed attention to the widening inequalities in urban food systems driven by the unique food environment, insufficient understanding and intervention around the informal food sector, aspects of gender and dietary challenges alongside multiplier Anthropocene impacts. It also highlights the urban-peri-urban and rural food system connectivity, but perhaps more could be developed with respect to referencing a sustainable food systems framework. While best practices regarding what city governments and partners are doing to transform their food systems are being shared by cities across the world, through for example, platforms like the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (awards) and Food Action Cities accessible databases, less appears to be shared about learnings and monitoring and evaluation – about what worked and what didn’t, what and how just food transformation was monitored and how communities moved forward. This is of value given the context specific character of food systems and governance and that everyone is learning and course correcting along the way.
Coverage of the UNFSS Coalitions, as interlinked in an ‘’ecosystem’’ of support to regional, national, sub-national including local governments with special mention of the Coalition on Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Food Systems and updates (if possible) as per the UNFSS Stocktaking in mid-2023 would be meaningful and can provide a dynamic resource within the report. Cross referencing with key reports like SOFI (2022) and the more recent Asia-Pacific SOFI as well as the Global Nutrition report provides further depth and a national and global perspective.
Cities/urban communities’ key role in invigorating urban-rural and regional connectivity and accelerated FS transformation is recognised in the scoping. It is worth mentioning that this is not only through the usual staple and fresh food demand but also by providing strong consumption-production signals for a diversity of sustainable and resilient food relationships through circular (‘’zero-waste’’) food systems, regenerative rural landscapes and social and technological innovations. In this respect, these dimensions should be further explored,
Moreover, as cities expand and more people reside in cities issues of ‘’food deserts’’ and urban creep into the peri-urban surrounds arise as such what constitutes urban vs peri-urban food system, agency and inclusion, nexus relationships e.g. food, municipal water, renewable energy, as well as impact on affordability and physical access to safe, nutritious and diverse foods should be clarified – with referencing of Dietary Quality.
A final note on context, while this matters, practices and learnings from other cities/cases offer invaluable tools, learnings and approaches which can be copied and or adapted. In this respect while there are disparities between developed and developing countries and cities exemplars offered by the cities of Baltimore, Bristol, Nairobi, Dhaka, Quelimane, New York and many others should be considered – and selected based on inspiration and criteria like city ‘’size and administrative mandate’’ and address of equity, urban planning innovation or best practice, ‘’one city’’ partnerships, farmers markets etc.
Suggested resources:
Dr. Ann Trevenen-Jones
Dear HLPE - FSN Team
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this report. This report provides a much needed critique and synthesis of urban, peri-urban (UPU) and rural food system elements s and relationships. Policy makers and development practitioners from a diversity of fields will find this report a key ''go to'' reference. As is the function of HLPE - FSN reports and given the complexity of the topic, the report brings together, in a succinct and coherent narrative, evidence of the character of UPU food systems across planning, policy instruments and institutional enablers including budgets, environment, nutrition, multi-level and scale governance, mobiilsing local agency and many more dimensions with address of cross cutting considerations e.g. inclusion and equity. Particular recognition of the experiences and vital role the informal food sector plays especially for low-income communities in urban areas who are the most vulnerable to all forms of malnutrition re: livelihoods, food safety, access and availability as well as informal - formal food systems relationships (e.g. Table 4.1) is acknowledged and much needed. This is also a push-pull systems opportunity between rural landscapes, communities and UPU spaces and one that as multiple transformative levers, local agency and resilience potential. Attached please find my responses to the questions posed by the HLPE-FSN team
Kind Regards, Dr Annie Trevenen-Jones
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?
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?
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?
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?
The report attempts to provide a few case studies with qualitative insights which adds value. The extent to which the report can provide further quantitative - qualitative data is a matter of balance, HLPE criterion and volume constraints of the report.
- Accessibility: It is worth noting that a lot of data and evidence is ‘’locked into’’ hard copy and online reports, technical databases, academic papers and multi-media including videos and which do not lend themselves to easy, convenient access to those in the public sector, communities and other active agents of change. Language constraints further hamper this.
5.
Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft? Nothing to add.
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.
GAIN’s policy option toolkits and collaborative approaches, engaging government and traditional/informal food market actors in Mozambique, Kenya and Pakistan as part of COVID-19 and building back better responses could be of interest. See: https://www.gainhealth.org/resources/reports-and-publications/policy-options-toolkits Notably this work had moved on with further development and in places (including scaling) interventions to helps national and city governments (and parts of the informal food sector) implement countries UNFSS pathway commitments.