City Region Food Systems: Building Resilience to COVID-19 and Other Shocks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper using examples that emerged during the current COVID-19 pandemic to examine City Region Food Systems (CRFS) contribution to regional sustainability and resilience. The paper is well written and highlights in a coherent and organic way the opportunities stemming from CRFS deriving from the main points of the CRFS approach. The ample space dedicated to examples of consequences and actions taken to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic represents an interesting starting point for future research on the response of food systems to global shocks, including those related to climate change. 

The only non-binding suggestion I take the liberty of making is the following, I wonder if among the "ad hoc efforts that engage with elements of the CRFS approach" the authors should make a reference to the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, as I think it would perfectly fit in the scope of the paper. 

Beyond this simple suggestion, I would recommend the paper to be published in its current form. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and positive read of our paper.

We also appreciate your suggestion to add the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. We did this in two places - lines 76 and again on 1373. While we did not point to case studies as it was beyond the word limit to add in more case studies, we did acknowledge the importance of the Pact and its relevance for the CRFS approach.

Again, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is very wide and articulated. It is suggested to insert a list with the acronyms of all the abbreviations that are very often repeated in the text.

Line 473 (Fei, S .; Ni, J. 2020) Number the bibliographic citation 49.

The description of the problems and solutions faced thanks to the policies implemented through the CRFS approach is interesting.

Fortunately, public and private financial initiatives have made it possible to intervene in difficult situations, however it is suggested to further emphasize some negative aspects not highlighted, and in particular:

1 - Aspects related to the pervasive criminal phenomena of contemporary capitalism due to the ability to infiltrate the legal economy. Agromafie that, taking advantage of the economic and financial shock caused by the Corona virus, threaten and pollute the clean economy and increase and multiply the exploitation of labor, undeclared work and illegal hiring. In these cases, fighting the mafias according to international cooperation strategies to intercept and fight the recycling of dirty money;

2 - the importance of defending democracy in a globalized market with an exasperated competitiveness that crushes the weakest and folds before the strongest, increasing inequalities.

3 - the role and interests of multinationals

Author Response

The review is very wide and articulated. It is suggested to insert a list with the acronyms of all the abbreviations that are very often repeated in the text.

Thank you for your positive comments. We did our best to either remove or make it more apparent where acronyms are used. 

Line 473 (Fei, S .; Ni, J. 2020) Number the bibliographic citation 49.

Addressed - thank you

The description of the problems and solutions faced thanks to the policies implemented through the CRFS approach is interesting.

Fortunately, public and private financial initiatives have made it possible to intervene in difficult situations, however it is suggested to further emphasize some negative aspects not highlighted, and in particular:

1 - Aspects related to the pervasive criminal phenomena of contemporary capitalism due to the ability to infiltrate the legal economy. Agromafie that, taking advantage of the economic and financial shock caused by the Corona virus, threaten and pollute the clean economy and increase and multiply the exploitation of labor, undeclared work and illegal hiring. In these cases, fighting the mafias according to international cooperation strategies to intercept and fight the recycling of dirty money;

While we agree this is a serious challenge and deserving of attention this did not appear in any of the documents we reviewed. We will take it under consideration for future research.

2 - the importance of defending democracy in a globalized market with an exasperated competitiveness that crushes the weakest and folds before the strongest, increasing inequalities. While constrained for space we did try to raise the profile of this challenge more by adding 'industrial capital-driven food system' throughout the paper e.g. lines 19-20, 38, 249, 1166 

3 - the role and interests of multinationals Again, unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of the paper but we do refer to papers that take this on e.g. lines 38, references 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19,  and 61; and section 2.1.

Thank you again for taking the time to provide such constructive feedback 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The review process is not double-blind. I was surprised to see the authors’ names and institutional affiliations presented at the beginning of the paper. This is not best practice. I do not know an of the authors or any their previous work. In my assessment, I do not have any conflicts of interest with the authors or the funding agencies. On the basis of this self-assessment I decided to proceed with reviewing the article. My decision in this regard was bolstered by the fact that I had delayed beginning my review, I do not want this to delay consideration of this article for publication.

Having said that, my review is critical of aspects of this article s presented. My recommendation is revise and resubmit.  

 

I have several criticisms.

1. The submission is more of an advocacy piece, than a research or review paper;
   1. The author’s uncritical present and promote the FAO CRFS model as an localist alternative and or complement to the global industrial food system (GIFS);
   2. No inclusion/exclusion criteria are presented for the CRFS and other ad hoc initiatives that engage elements of the CRFS model;
2. The authors’ thesis – that the CRFS model is a complementary alternative to GIFS is not well supported by the evidence and argument presented;
   1. The bulk of the evidence presented seems to support an argument that CRFS initiatives have the effect of
      1. centralizing planning and management of CRFS’s, and thereby,
      2. integrating them into GIFS.

 

Recommended substantive revisions:

• The alternative interpretation suggested above, whether the author’s agree or nor, should be explicitly acknowledged and addressed.
• Lines 636-653: Summary of theory and practice consensus is poorly presented, no sources are cited, and the contradictions embedded in the “consensus” are not identified or commented on.

Recommended technical revisions:

• Spell out in full all acronyms.
• Line 363: “less” should be “fewer”

General observations, critiques and suggestions:

CRFS Model presented on page 3 is a useful heuristic. It seems not to capture the complexity of food systems, or their complex (inter) dependencies with  other systems, although some of these are implicitly identified in the food system functions represented in the outer rig of actions depicted in the model.

Although the authors use “systems” language, the underlying, taken-for-granted assumptions informing description (diagnosis), analysis (prognosis), and recommendations (prescription) for action seem to reflect an actor/agent/subject centric bias.

Lines 124 -125: The authors claim that the global industrial food system (GIFS) has been affected by the Covid-19 global pandemic. This seems to be self-evidently true. Everything has been affected by the global pandemic. It is important, however, to be critically self-reflexive in the use of concepts. It seems self-evidently true to many researchers that the global food system is industrial. I am not suggesting this is not the case. At the same time, however, I am suggesting that this assertion/assessment requires critical examination and elaboration. Despite its widespread use, the concept industrialmay not be adequate or appropriate for the analytical tasks the authors demand of it.

The concept industrial refers primarily to the centralization of production processes. Much of what is identified as problematic, and in need of reform, however, related to circulation, including, markets and transportation, and distributionof food stuffs.

Perhaps a more general concept such as globalizing capitalist food system may be more appropriate given that most theories of capitalism recognize the interrelationships between production, circulation, and distribution of commodities. At least this is explicitly so with Marxist theories of capitalism.

Alternative, not Marxist, approaches to analyzing the nature, operation and effects of complex systems include Complexity Theory, Actor-Network Theory, Assemblage Theory, Structuration Theory. Complexity Theory assigns analytical priority to sui generis systems. The others all adopt versions of methodological individuals and assign analytical priority to agent/actor actins (i.e., intentional, goal-oriented behaviurs). This second approach seems to be congruent with the author’s ontological an epistemological assumption.   

 

From systems theory perspectives, industrial systems are generally understood to be based on principles of centralization and consolidation of power and  resources. The CRF System seems to be based on a principle of decentralization and distribution of power and resources. It is probably safe to hypothesize that the globalizing industrial food system will not dissolve in any foreseeable future. It demonstrated its own resilience and adaptive capacities (as well as its fault lines and limitations) in the face of the Covid-19 challenges. A central (and contentious) proposition of contemporary systems theory (i.e., complexity theory) is that complex, dynamic adaptive systems, including socio-cultural, (i.e., knowledge-action) systems have systemic effects, that are independent of the intentions and actions those who occupy the positions (roles) that constitute the systems, as well as planners and policy-makers who occupy roles in other intersecting systems and sub-systems (such as governments, corporations, and international organizations and agencies).

All of this is a prologue to the question -  have the authors examined the hypothesis that the introduction of a new decentralized city region food system may be impeded by the system effects of the globalizing industrial food system and interests of those who benefit from it, or the CRFS being advocated may have its own internal characteristics and contradictions that will result in unanticipated and undesirable consequences?

Based on the authors’ descriptions of challenges associated with food distribution, sale and storage it seems that Covid-19, or perhaps more accurately, the measures taken in attempts to control its spread, caused both the global industrialized and the CRFS,  many of the same problems…see Section 3.2     

Lines 318-319: Is it not the case that Covid-19 originated in a WFM through the storage and sale of locally sourced, and culturally appropriate wild meat species (hypothesized to be bats and or pangolins). If this is true, then it should at least be acknowledged that CRFS may themselves pose sustainability challenges.

Lines 305-307:  Here  the authors approvingly observed that implementing CRFS principles in Antananarivo eliminated middle-men who they claim increase food costs by four or five times. By eliminating middle-men does the CRFS not also contribute to local unemployment and loss of livelihoods? If so, is this not a problem? This questions refers back to my general observation that the authors’ silence regarding the potential contradiction of the CRFS should be commented on… 

The material ending line 344: The authors provide a list of measures taken in WFM’s in response to Covid-19 and conclude efforts such as those could be strengthened  by introducing coherent CRFSs. Although stated as a fact, based on the evidence provided (or more to the point, not provided), this should probably be stated as a hypothesis, or a research question. 

Lines 370-373 (and throughout): The authors seem to ascribe all the processing and marketing problems that resulted from the measures introduced to manage the spread of the Covid-19 infection to the central control of food system processes inherent in the industrial global food system. Paradoxically, the enthusiastic endorsement of the CRFS solution is itself  based on national and various sub-national levels of government centralizing control over locally and regionally based food systems.

In my view it is incumbent on the authors to address this apparent paradox – why is centralization of control within CRFS’s not a problem, whereas it is apparently the problem within the Global Industrialized Food System (GIFS)?  

Line 380: (Also see my comments re: Lines 305-307). The authors should discuss the role of export (and import) markets in CRFS models. It was mentioned that CRFS are complementary to GIFSs, but this does not necessarily mean integrated with…    

It is argued, and widely accepted as true, that the GIFS results in cheap food (certainly, in part, this is because many of the costs associated with this system are externalized in the form of environmental pollution and eco-system degradation) such that the costs associated with this and the aggregate effects in the form of climate change, are not reflected in the price of food. In at least two places in the paper the authors seem to state that the CRFS increases costs and displaces some who make their livelihoods in the GIFS. To the extent that this is correct, it calls for empirical research into the various direct and indirect costs associated with both the  CRFS and the GIFS. 

Some of these issues are raised in Lines 447-450: In China essentially all migrants are internal migrants. Thus, comparing China to many other countries in this regard is a case of comparing apples and oranges.  

Lines 467-482: The authors express concern about the centralization and concentration of meat processing in a number of Western countries, but speak approvingly of some technology based initiatives undertaken by the Chinese state and loosely aligned mega-corporations. This in itself isn’t a problem. The authors should address the apparent contradiction related to their claims that concentration and centralization is a problem in one context, but a solution in another. 

Lines 489-493: Lines 489-490 claim that it is important to foster the informal economy as part of resilience. The relationship between the informal sector of agri-food economies should be discussed at the beginning of the paper when the CRFS model is presented.

It seems to me that this assertion seems counter-intuitive insofar as it seems to be a conclusion based on a discussion of how digital technologies are being used in various national contexts to formalize the informal sector of these economies.

Lines 495-498: These statements raise a question about whether CRFSs are democratizing or whether, as suggested by the discussion of China, they (CRFS) can be understood as increasing intra-national centralization and control of what until now have been sub-national (local and regional informal) food systems?

Line 591: It appears that one of the co-authors of the resources cited as 27 is also a co-author of the paper currently under review.  This in itself is not a fatal flaw. Self-citation is common and appropriate in many cases. In this case it seems slightly self-serving as the quotation used simply reiterates the main conclusion of the claims being made in the paper being reviewed without acknowledging that one of the current co-authors is also a co-author of the cited work. .  

Line 594: See my previous comments about explicitly conceptualizing CRFS from the perspective of complexity theory. Based on my reading of this paper it seems that an argum4nt could be made that it is not an alternative to the GIFS, but rather, a strategy for systemizing local-regional agri-food systems, rendering them  more effective and efficient, and thus integrating them into the GIFS.   

Lines 636-653: Summary of theory and practice consensus is poorly presented, no sources are cited, and the contradictions embedded in the “consensus” are not identified or commented on.

Line 661: This may be the most explicit expression of the contradiction between the systems verbiage and the subject-centered (that is, individual level of analysis) implicit throughout the paper. Recognition of the fac that CRFS is an instance of system centered planning would make many of the contradiction in the paper more clear to the authors and readers.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached file. The red text indicates where we responded to your comments. 

We thank you for you comments. They made our paper much stronger.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx