Food Systems: New UN priorities for urban and peri-urban Food Systems

The UN’s Committee on World Food Security (or CFS) envisions a large role for governments in food systems with ambitious responsibilities for national and regional governments. The CFS gathered this summer to draft a shared vision on Urban and Peri-Urban food systems. Their conclusions included a vision for the formalization of markets, intentions for international oversight, and best-practice sharing. 

The CFS’s primary mandate is to converge national policies and coordinate a global approach to food security. The agency shares the city of Rome with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and two other food-related agencies. The FAO focuses more on global trade and fair agricultural practices. 

“So, does this mean that the UN Council of Food Security is the CFS?”  Yes, but it also specializes in joint policy recommendations and research. It is their mission to ensure food supply globally and works with partners such as UNRWA. Because CFS is an UN institution, it is often the case that the negotiated text is nuanced, because of the tough negotiations and conflicting national interests. 

Peri-Urban food systems

Let us first define urban and peri-urban food systems. Food systems are the core of human existence; they portray the circulation of food in a market economy. Urban and peri-urban mean nothing more than cities and peripheral city areas. Currently, the Urban and Peri-Urban Food Systems account for 60% of food production and are the driving factor in food distribution (FAO). Yet, with rapid urbanization and a growing population, the urban and peri-urban food production is increasingly in danger. To foster and conserve agricultural practices around urban centers, the CFS tries to sustain food supply and prevent famines. 

The CFS has addressed this policy recommendation primarily to governments to support and advise regions regarding food security. The policy recommendation starts by bestowing governments with a wide range of responsibilities for agricultural production. Normally, this is already a national priority and politically correct because it is in line with existing ambitions, such as increasing agricultural output or striving for cheap and healthy products. Still, due to discrimination, disproportionate access to resources, or a lack of administrative capacity, legislation can be improved for tasks such as facilitating agricultural practices for everyone, innovation, and an even distribution of the facilities.

The midstream of the supply chain (retailers, processing, and storage) is similarly seen as a shared responsibility of the state, with an emphasis on social inclusion and investment in infrastructure and logistics. Recognizing the role of capital investors, the Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are seen as the most effective way to realize a resilient food system because governments and businesses complement each other by sharing knowledge and resources.

Responsibilities such as food safety, market competition, and inclusive access to food have the most connection to the end of the supply chain. Markets, community kitchens, and small businesses ought to adhere to these responsibilities to become more resilient and maintain a healthy balance of businesses. 

Limited power

Although the policy recommendation highlights the role of local and national governments, the negotiations revealed the willingness of states to cooperate on a global level. National governments negotiated a joint text about urban and peri-urban food systems. I attended the negotiations in July. What I found remarkable was the position of the US during the negotiations; blocking paragraphs regarding health services, climate change, and the alignment of trade regulations (FAOa). All linked to the newly arrived political wave in the US. The anti-woke and isolationist position puts the US in the camp of the Russian Federation, which long framed UN and FAO negotiations as arenas where the woke ideology is imposed. The Republican Party similarly portrays these institutions as promoting “wokeness,” global governance, and regulatory overreach (Mawdsley, 2025). Therefore, both states converge in rejecting multilateral oversight on social, environmental, and economic issues. This is exemplary of how national politics can find common ground within global food security negotiations, even when geopolitical interests differ. 

Interestingly, the EU operates as a bloc in UN negotiations. Diverging opinions were negotiated before the global negotiations to impact the UN’s position even more. Negotiating was done by one of the permanent representations of the EU’s member states. The weight of the European vote is as impactful as it is predictable. Communications by the European Commission and Council are open to everyone and show the general European compromise.

Negotiating with 139 countries – though not more than 25 were present – is often a tedious process; dots, comma’s and formulations were carefully discussed. The final recommendations are less sparkling than the CFS’s objectives prescribe. It shows the lack of mandate in UN institutions and, less cynically, the difficulty of negotiating with 139 autonomous governments. Nevertheless, cooperation is key, and the main point the governments wanted to cooperate on was social inclusion, investment, and innovation for food security.

Find the full policy recommendation here: LINK